🚀 go-pugleaf

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
news:87prcatjk6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:

> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
> 
>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>> news:87bpnupvp2.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>
>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:37:12 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
>>>> Z.) wrote in <87eisqeogn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>>>>
>>>>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:42:33 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
>>>>>> Z.) wrote in <87ocruajae.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is simply not a free market.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is simply is a free market.  Evidence abounds.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not true - the high price of text messages being a prime example.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately for your thesis, that alone is not evidence of
>>>> anything, any more than expensive bottled water is evidence of no
>>>> free market for water.
>>> 
>>> Not true when they are charging 20 cents for something that costs them
>>> an estimated 0.3 cents.  The "free market" is obiviously not working.
>>> The question is why.
>>> 
>>> It's not like people are paying a premium to buy a status symbol.
>>> 
>>
>> So your assertion is that markup alone dictates whether or not a free 
>> market exists?
> 
> When you get that kind of "markup" on a commodity and no competition
> driving the price down, it is pretty damn obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Actually, I don't think it is.  There is a fairly wide spread of offerings 
between carriers, with as much as a $50 spread in "unlimited" offers 
between postapiad and prepaid phones.  I noticed that Boost offers 
unliminted texting for a dollar a day only for the days where you text.  

It looks like there is all kinds of competitive pricing in the industry.  
It sounds like you might simply have an issue with  a company profiting 
from consumer use of a finite service.

John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
> news:87prcatjk6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>
>
> Actually, I don't think it is.  There is a fairly wide spread of offerings 
> between carriers, with as much as a $50 spread in "unlimited" offers 
> between postapiad and prepaid phones.  I noticed that Boost offers 
> unliminted texting for a dollar a day only for the days where you text.  

So, someone who sends or receives 2 messages a day pays 50 cents per
message.  It's yet another gimmick.




-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
news:87r5wpgx18.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 

> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
> 
>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
>> news:87prcatjk6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>
>>
>> Actually, I don't think it is.  There is a fairly wide spread of
>> offerings between carriers, with as much as a $50 spread in
>> "unlimited" offers between postpaid and prepaid phones.  I noticed
>> that Boost offers unliminted texting for a dollar a day only for the
>> days where you text.  
> 
> So, someone who sends or receives 2 messages a day pays 50 cents per
> message.  It's yet another gimmick.
> 
> 
> 
> 

What about the first point?  Specifically, the wide differnece in plan 
prices among the carriers?  How does that support your position?

Bill Z. wrote:
> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
> 
>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
>> news:87prcatjk6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>
>>
>> Actually, I don't think it is.  There is a fairly wide spread of offerings 
>> between carriers, with as much as a $50 spread in "unlimited" offers 
>> between postapiad and prepaid phones.  I noticed that Boost offers 
>> unliminted texting for a dollar a day only for the days where you text.  
> 
> So, someone who sends or receives 2 messages a day pays 50 cents per
> message.  It's yet another gimmick.

There's just no making you happy. If a provider offers pay as you go 
texting for those that rarely text, and the price is higher than texting 
packages that are very low cost per text, you're unhappy.

So let's get this straight. You think 20 cents per text is too high for 
a la carte. Is 1 cent per text for a texting package with 1500 texts too 
low? Do you want that texting package to be 5 cents per text so they can 
subsiize a lower a la carte price? Or would you rather have the carrier 
raise the price of their voice plans so that texting no longer 
subsidizes anything? What would be a fair discount to those that are 
willing to buy a lot of texts in advance that they might not use up 
entirely?

What about ringtones? These cost almost nothing for the carrier, yet 
they sell them for $1. Even worse is Apple who charges you $1 for a song 
on iTunes, then another $1 if you want that song as a ring tone. What 
price should the senate mandate that the carriers charge for ringtones, 
and every other worthless service that stupid people buy and that allows 
lower cost voice plans?

John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
> news:87r5wpgx18.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>
>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>> 
>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
>>> news:87prcatjk6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I don't think it is.  There is a fairly wide spread of
>>> offerings between carriers, with as much as a $50 spread in
>>> "unlimited" offers between postpaid and prepaid phones.  I noticed
>>> that Boost offers unliminted texting for a dollar a day only for the
>>> days where you text.  
>> 
>> So, someone who sends or receives 2 messages a day pays 50 cents per
>> message.  It's yet another gimmick.
>
> What about the first point?  Specifically, the wide differnece in plan 
> prices among the carriers?  How does that support your position?

It's irrelvant.  Usually your choice of carriers is limited by which
ones have a decent signal strength where you live and work.  Or you
end up using the same service as the majority of the people you call
(because of the higher number of "free" minutes when you call another
of the same company's customer).

Plus the "unlimited" offers are irrelevant when you won't come close
to using the capacity it offers.  A $50 spread in "unlimited" is
hardly relevant when the price is too high to begin with for any
of them.

-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>
>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>> news:87prcatjk6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I don't think it is.  There is a fairly wide spread of
>>> offerings between carriers, with as much as a $50 spread in
>>> "unlimited" offers between postapiad and prepaid phones.  I noticed
>>> that Boost offers unliminted texting for a dollar a day only for
>>> the days where you text.  
>>
>> So, someone who sends or receives 2 messages a day pays 50 cents per
>> message.  It's yet another gimmick.
>
> There's just no making you happy. If a provider offers pay as you go
> texting for those that rarely text, and the price is higher than
> texting packages that are very low cost per text, you're unhappy.
>
> So let's get this straight. You think 20 cents per text is too high
> for a la carte. 

Yeah - even 1 penny per text message is too high, but it is a lot
closer to reasonable thean 20 cents per message.

> What about ringtones? These cost almost nothing for the carrier, yet
> they sell them for $1. Even worse is Apple who charges you $1 for a
> song on iTunes, then another $1 if you want that song as a ring
> tone. What price should the senate mandate that the carriers charge
> for ringtones, and every other worthless service that stupid people
> buy and that allows lower cost voice plans?

Ringtones are not a communication service, and the "regulation"
you need is to make sure that the companies do not remove the
capability to download your own ringtone over the internet and
transfer it to your phone via a bluetooth link, etc.

My phone had a ring-tone composer application, so I just used that
to create a custom ring tone. They let it by because you had to
be able to read BNF to figure out how to program it.

-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
news:87iqi1co6c.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:

> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
> 
>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>> news:87r5wpgx18.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>
>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
>>>> news:87prcatjk6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I don't think it is.  There is a fairly wide spread of
>>>> offerings between carriers, with as much as a $50 spread in
>>>> "unlimited" offers between postpaid and prepaid phones.  I noticed
>>>> that Boost offers unliminted texting for a dollar a day only for the
>>>> days where you text.  
>>> 
>>> So, someone who sends or receives 2 messages a day pays 50 cents per
>>> message.  It's yet another gimmick.
>>
>> What about the first point?  Specifically, the wide differnece in plan 
>> prices among the carriers?  How does that support your position?
> 
> It's irrelvant.  Usually your choice of carriers is limited by which
> ones have a decent signal strength where you live and work.  Or you
> end up using the same service as the majority of the people you call
> (because of the higher number of "free" minutes when you call another
> of the same company's customer).

So there are competitive differences between carriers?


> 
> Plus the "unlimited" offers are irrelevant when you won't come close
> to using the capacity it offers.  A $50 spread in "unlimited" is
> hardly relevant when the price is too high to begin with for any
> of them.
> 

I'll just agree with others who have posted- there is no obvious 
satisfactory outcome for you, except maybe to not pay for anything

Bill Z. wrote:

> It's irrelvant.  Usually your choice of carriers is limited by which
> ones have a decent signal strength where you live and work.

I think that you must live in the San Francisco Bay Area!

If you go to many other parts of the country you'll find that coverage 
quality is such that your choice of carriers isn't so limited. While 
it's true that Verizon is rated best in every metropolitan area in the 
U.S., the differences aren't as great on the east coast, the south, and 
in Texas as they are in the west. In the west, quite frankly, unless 
you're in some weird spot, or right next to a tower of Sprint, T-Mobile, 
or AT&T, you wouldn't want anything other than Verizon.

> Or you
> end up using the same service as the majority of the people you call
> (because of the higher number of "free" minutes when you call another
> of the same company's customer).
> 
> Plus the "unlimited" offers are irrelevant when you won't come close
> to using the capacity it offers.  A $50 spread in "unlimited" is
> hardly relevant when the price is too high to begin with for any
> of them.

It all depends on how clever you want to get and how much trouble you 
want to go through. In Alltel areas you can now get unlimited voice and 
text for $22.75/month, if you combine the right plan with Google Voice. 
If you have decent Sprint coverage, unlimited is $35/month plus taxes 
and fees.

If you're not grandfathered in on some old plan, the best deal out there 
now for sub $35, is the 1500 min/1500 texts for $33. It likely doesn't 
matter about free M2M and free off-peak with 1500 minutes, unless you 
spend 25 hours a month on the phone.

John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
> news:87iqi1co6c.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>
>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>> 
>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>> news:87r5wpgx18.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>>
>>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
>>>>> news:87prcatjk6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I don't think it is.  There is a fairly wide spread of
>>>>> offerings between carriers, with as much as a $50 spread in
>>>>> "unlimited" offers between postpaid and prepaid phones.  I noticed
>>>>> that Boost offers unliminted texting for a dollar a day only for the
>>>>> days where you text.  
>>>> 
>>>> So, someone who sends or receives 2 messages a day pays 50 cents per
>>>> message.  It's yet another gimmick.
>>>
>>> What about the first point?  Specifically, the wide differnece in plan 
>>> prices among the carriers?  How does that support your position?
>> 
>> It's irrelvant.  Usually your choice of carriers is limited by which
>> ones have a decent signal strength where you live and work.  Or you
>> end up using the same service as the majority of the people you call
>> (because of the higher number of "free" minutes when you call another
>> of the same company's customer).
>
> So there are competitive differences between carriers?

Not regarding the exorbitantly high charges for text messages, which
is what was being discussed.

>> Plus the "unlimited" offers are irrelevant when you won't come close
>> to using the capacity it offers.  A $50 spread in "unlimited" is
>> hardly relevant when the price is too high to begin with for any
>> of them.
>> 
>
> I'll just agree with others who have posted- there is no obvious 
> satisfactory outcome for you, except maybe to not pay for anything

Now you are reduced to lying through your teeth.


-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>> It's irrelvant.  Usually your choice of carriers is limited by which
>> ones have a decent signal strength where you live and work.
>
> I think that you must live in the San Francisco Bay Area!

Sigh.  What do you think ba.internet refers to?

>> Plus the "unlimited" offers are irrelevant when you won't come close
>> to using the capacity it offers.  A $50 spread in "unlimited" is
>> hardly relevant when the price is too high to begin with for any
>> of them.
>
> It all depends on how clever you want to get and how much trouble you
> want to go through. In Alltel areas you can now get unlimited voice
> and text for $22.75/month, if you combine the right plan with Google
> Voice. If you have decent Sprint coverage, unlimited is $35/month plus
> taxes and fees.
>
> If you're not grandfathered in on some old plan, the best deal out
> there now for sub $35, is the 1500 min/1500 texts for $33. It likely
> doesn't matter about free M2M and free off-peak with 1500 minutes,
> unless you spend 25 hours a month on the phone.

Irrelevant with regard to the fact that 20 cents per text message is
way above what it costs to provide the service.

-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
news:87ljmx6w0n.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 

> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
> 
>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
>> news:87iqi1co6c.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>
>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>>> news:87r5wpgx18.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>>>
>>>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
>>>>>> news:87prcatjk6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, I don't think it is.  There is a fairly wide spread of
>>>>>> offerings between carriers, with as much as a $50 spread in
>>>>>> "unlimited" offers between postpaid and prepaid phones.  I
>>>>>> noticed that Boost offers unliminted texting for a dollar a day
>>>>>> only for the days where you text.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, someone who sends or receives 2 messages a day pays 50 cents
>>>>> per message.  It's yet another gimmick.
>>>>
>>>> What about the first point?  Specifically, the wide differnece in
>>>> plan prices among the carriers?  How does that support your
>>>> position? 
>>> 
>>> It's irrelvant.  Usually your choice of carriers is limited by which
>>> ones have a decent signal strength where you live and work.  Or you
>>> end up using the same service as the majority of the people you call
>>> (because of the higher number of "free" minutes when you call
>>> another of the same company's customer).
>>
>> So there are competitive differences between carriers?
> 
> Not regarding the exorbitantly high charges for text messages, which
> is what was being discussed.

Being discussed as a portion of a greater discussion outlined in the 
title of this thread.  I realize that my comments blow your conspiracy 
theory out of the water, so I don't have an expectation of cooperation 
from you concerning them.

> 
>>> Plus the "unlimited" offers are irrelevant when you won't come close
>>> to using the capacity it offers.  A $50 spread in "unlimited" is
>>> hardly relevant when the price is too high to begin with for any
>>> of them.
>>> 
>>
>> I'll just agree with others who have posted- there is no obvious 
>> satisfactory outcome for you, except maybe to not pay for anything
> 
> Now you are reduced to lying through your teeth.
> 
> 

Oh, please expound- this will be good.

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:36:49 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> John Blutarsky wrote:
>
>> So your assertion is that markup alone dictates whether or not a free
>> market exists?
>
> Personally, I'm thrilled that there are customers that are subsidizing
> the basic voice service with 20 cent text messages, ringtones, picture
> messaging, games, insurance, and whatever other worthless crap the
> carriers are able to sell to clueless people. Without this revenue, the
> basic voice service would probably be much more expensive, and stuff
> like free M2M, free domestic long distance, and free nights and weekends
> wouldn't exist.
>
> I do wonder if they don't have the pricing model backwards. They should
> be encouraging more texting with lower rates, and charging more for
> voice calls which use much more bandwidth and end up causing dropped
> calls, a problem AT&T suffers from particularly badly (despite the
> Cingular ad campaign that claimed the opposite!).

Cingular evidently has a rather singular view of the truth :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
> news:87ljmx6w0n.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>
>> Not regarding the exorbitantly high charges for text messages, which
>> is what was being discussed.
>
> Being discussed as a portion of a greater discussion outlined in the 
> title of this thread.  I realize that my comments blow your conspiracy 
> theory out of the water, so I don't have an expectation of cooperation 
> from you concerning them.
>
Look, moron, when reasonable estimates of the cost of a text message
put it at well under a penny, a 20 cent charge for that message is
obviously exorbitantly high.  Lying about alleged "conspiracy theories"
is just an attempt to cover up that fact.

>> 
>> Now you are reduced to lying through your teeth.
>> 
> Oh, please expound- this will be good.

Hey moron, when you write, "I'll just agree with others who have posted-
there is no obvious satisfactory outcome for you, except maybe to not
pay for anything", you are lying through your teeth.

I was simply objecting to unreasonably high charges that are grossly
in excess of the cost of providing the service.  I made some quick
estimates and came up with under a penny per message for the actual
cost.  I then found a URL, which I posted, giving a reasonable
estimate of 0.3 cents per text message, made by a computer scientist
who was studying such systems.  You are in denial.  I wonder why.

-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
> 
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>> It's irrelvant.  Usually your choice of carriers is limited by which
>>> ones have a decent signal strength where you live and work.
>> I think that you must live in the San Francisco Bay Area!
> 
> Sigh.  What do you think ba.internet refers to?
> 
>>> Plus the "unlimited" offers are irrelevant when you won't come close
>>> to using the capacity it offers.  A $50 spread in "unlimited" is
>>> hardly relevant when the price is too high to begin with for any
>>> of them.
>> It all depends on how clever you want to get and how much trouble you
>> want to go through. In Alltel areas you can now get unlimited voice
>> and text for $22.75/month, if you combine the right plan with Google
>> Voice. If you have decent Sprint coverage, unlimited is $35/month plus
>> taxes and fees.
>>
>> If you're not grandfathered in on some old plan, the best deal out
>> there now for sub $35, is the 1500 min/1500 texts for $33. It likely
>> doesn't matter about free M2M and free off-peak with 1500 minutes,
>> unless you spend 25 hours a month on the phone.
> 
> Irrelevant with regard to the fact that 20 cents per text message is
> way above what it costs to provide the service.
> 

Is there some reason, other than your dislike of the practice, that it 
should not be?  The price of a restaurant meal is far above what it 
costs to produce and serve it!  No one is forced to use the service. 
Many of us older folks lived three quarters of our lives without cell 
phones or texting at all.  I've been using cell phones for about twelve 
years now and have NEVER sent a text message FROM my phone!

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> Is there some reason, other than your dislike of the practice, that it 
> should not be?  The price of a restaurant meal is far above what it 
> costs to produce and serve it!  

No it isn't.

The food cost alone is 25% to 40% of the meal price.  Then there's the 
labor and overhead of keeping the doors open and the lights on.  The 
percentage of restaurants that fail in the first few years without ever 
showing a profit and taking with them all the capital used to start them 
is astonishingly high.  Most restaurants lose Thousands of Dollars, 
EVERY MONTH.  Very few are profitable, even fewer are profitable enough 
that the owner can successfully open a second profitable location (pay a 
location manager instead of being an onsite owner/manager).

Rich people get tapped to "invest in a restaurant" and lose every dime 
time and time again.  An accountant who did the books for several 
restaurants had a client who wanted to go into the business and he said 
he would place the client in one of his customer's restaurants and let 
them manage it every month.  They would work 7 days a week, and pay 
$10,000 per month (because this is how much the average restaurant loses 
each month).  If they still felt like it was a good idea after 6 months, 
THEN they could consider "investing" in a restaurant.

The problem with the telco industry is that they have such high startup 
and ongoing capital costs, the equipment and lines needed to provision 
the service.  If you guess that an investment will be good for 5 years 
before you have to replace it and you guess wrong and the market takes a 
turn and you have to replace everything in 3 years (e.g. dial-up modems 
vs DSL), you can go BK and many ISPs and telcos did just that.

jc

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>>
>> Irrelevant with regard to the fact that 20 cents per text message is
>> way above what it costs to provide the service.
>
> Is there some reason, other than your dislike of the practice, that it
> should not be?  The price of a restaurant meal is far above what it
> costs to produce and serve it!  No one is forced to use the
> service. Many of us older folks lived three quarters of our lives
> without cell phones or texting at all.  I've been using cell phones
> for about twelve years now and have NEVER sent a text message FROM my
> phone!

As was pointed out to you, they are using a public resource (the
electromagnetic spectrum) with only a few companies calling the shots.
The public can reasonably require fair pricing practices in exchange
for giving a private company exclusive use of that resource.

BTW, restaurant prices are in fact regulated in the U.S. - in (for
example) national parks where a company is given exclusive rights
to a location there.  The reason is that for environmental reasons
the number of businesses are limited, so those that are there are
required to provide a fair price, determined by comparision with
comparable businesses outside the parks.

It's really the same principle - if you get exclusive rights to a
public resource, then you have to charge fair prices for the service
that you are providing.

How many text messages either of us send personally is irrelevant.

-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:87my7c7eh9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>>>
>>> Irrelevant with regard to the fact that 20 cents per text message is
>>> way above what it costs to provide the service.
>>
>> Is there some reason, other than your dislike of the practice, that it
>> should not be?  The price of a restaurant meal is far above what it
>> costs to produce and serve it!  No one is forced to use the
>> service. Many of us older folks lived three quarters of our lives
>> without cell phones or texting at all.  I've been using cell phones
>> for about twelve years now and have NEVER sent a text message FROM my
>> phone!
>
> As was pointed out to you, they are using a public resource (the
> electromagnetic spectrum) with only a few companies calling the shots.
> The public can reasonably require fair pricing practices in exchange
> for giving a private company exclusive use of that resource.
>
> BTW, restaurant prices are in fact regulated in the U.S. - in (for
> example) national parks where a company is given exclusive rights
> to a location there.  The reason is that for environmental reasons
> the number of businesses are limited, so those that are there are
> required to provide a fair price, determined by comparision with
> comparable businesses outside the parks.
>
> It's really the same principle - if you get exclusive rights to a
> public resource, then you have to charge fair prices for the service
> that you are providing.

There is "room" in public wireless airspace for up to seven providers.  The 
Feds determined (rightly or wrongly) by allowing the relatively recent 
mergers of AT&T Wireless and Cingular, Sprint and Nextel, and most recently 
Verizon and Alltel, that a "quadigopoly" offers enough competition. 
Personally, I prefer regional carriers forced (by marketplace forces- not 
Federal intervention!) to offer reciprocal roaming, but we play the hand 
we're dealt.  I believe wireless is competitively priced, and while I might 
actually use texting if it was resonably priced, I don't blame carriers for 
gouging- I blame stupid customers for paying whatever the carriers ask. 
Similarly, I don't blame Coca-Cola for selling their Dansani bottled water 
product (which I jokinging call "unflavored Coke") for the same price as 
Coca-Cola.  If people are willing to pay for it, who am I to begruge 
Coca-Cola for taking their money?

What you haven't demonstrated, is that the "price fixing" ISN'T a result of 
natural free market forces.  You've been given several real-world analogous 
scenarios that explain why a la carte texting is priced far above the cost 
to provide it, examples of far smaller competitors who DO undercut their 
larger cousins, and you offer no cogent argument as to how lowing the price 
would benefit a large carrier by increasing profits or market share- the 
ONLY reasons a vendor cuts prices!


Asking the same government for some sort of relief would, on its face, seem 
misguided, (as well as ironic!)  Other than the price of a la carte texting- 
one relatively insigniifcant item, do you allege any other price fixing, 
collusion, or gouging?

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Bill Z. wrote:

>> The public can reasonably require fair pricing practices in exchange
>> for giving a private company exclusive use of that resource.

> 
> I believe that the companies involved pay the government for the right 
> to use those frequencies.

The reason for Bill's confusion is now clear. He believes that that the 
government _gave_ the private companies exclusive use of the resources, 
when in fact the government _sold_ the private companies the exclusive 
use of the resource. Then the government went and made more of the 
resource available, enabling competitors to spring up, i.e. with the 
opening of 1900 MHz and 1700 MHz spectrum, ending the duopoly.

It is true that the older carriers got the valuable 800 MHz spectrum for 
less than it would now fetch at auction, but those companies took the 
gamble back in the 1980's and built the AMPS network at considerable 
cost. They are now reaping the rewards of their investment.

There are lots of things for the government to fix after the Bush years. 
Regulating texting rates isn't one of them.

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
news:878wixqemr.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:

> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
> 
>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>> news:87ljmx6w0n.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>
>>> Not regarding the exorbitantly high charges for text messages, which
>>> is what was being discussed.
>>
>> Being discussed as a portion of a greater discussion outlined in the 
>> title of this thread.  I realize that my comments blow your conspiracy 
>> theory out of the water, so I don't have an expectation of cooperation 
>> from you concerning them.
>>
> Look, moron, when reasonable estimates of the cost of a text message
> put it at well under a penny, a 20 cent charge for that message is
> obviously exorbitantly high.  Lying about alleged "conspiracy theories"
> is just an attempt to cover up that fact.

It would appear that I am not the moron in this discussion.  And where did 
I lie, Skippy?

> 
>>> 
>>> Now you are reduced to lying through your teeth.
>>> 
>> Oh, please expound- this will be good.
> 
> Hey moron, when you write, "I'll just agree with others who have posted-
> there is no obvious satisfactory outcome for you, except maybe to not
> pay for anything", you are lying through your teeth.

You were presented with facts that show a wide discrepency in the cost of 
services offered by carriers.  Additionally, at least one major carrier 
offers an unimited text messaging add-on.  I've even found a bucket of text 
messaging as low as 10 cents apiece.  None of this even remotely points to 
collusion by the carriers.

> 
> I was simply objecting to unreasonably high charges that are grossly
> in excess of the cost of providing the service.  

Please provide a link to any state or federal statute, law or regulation 
that prohibits such a high margin and I'll gladly shut up and go away.  
Otherwise, you'll just have to realize that in a free market demand is 
going to dictate pricing, not someone's objection to profits realized.

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
news:87my7c7eh9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:

> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
> 
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>>>
>>> Irrelevant with regard to the fact that 20 cents per text message is
>>> way above what it costs to provide the service.
>>
>> Is there some reason, other than your dislike of the practice, that it
>> should not be?  The price of a restaurant meal is far above what it
>> costs to produce and serve it!  No one is forced to use the
>> service. Many of us older folks lived three quarters of our lives
>> without cell phones or texting at all.  I've been using cell phones
>> for about twelve years now and have NEVER sent a text message FROM my
>> phone!
> 
> As was pointed out to you, they are using a public resource (the
> electromagnetic spectrum) with only a few companies calling the shots.
> The public can reasonably require fair pricing practices in exchange
> for giving a private company exclusive use of that resource.

Based on what element of law?  Please point me to the FCC regulation that 
states what you have just posted.

> 
> BTW, restaurant prices are in fact regulated in the U.S. - in (for
> example) national parks where a company is given exclusive rights
> to a location there.  

You'll need more examples than that to prove your point.

The reason is that for environmental reasons
> the number of businesses are limited, so those that are there are
> required to provide a fair price, determined by comparision with
> comparable businesses outside the parks.
> 
> It's really the same principle - if you get exclusive rights to a
> public resource, then you have to charge fair prices for the service
> that you are providing.

Principle is not law, LJ.


> 
> How many text messages either of us send personally is irrelevant.
> 

You must be related to Larry.

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:

> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>>> The public can reasonably require fair pricing practices in exchange
>>> for giving a private company exclusive use of that resource.
>
>>
>> I believe that the companies involved pay the government for the
>> right to use those frequencies.
>
> The reason for Bill's confusion is now clear. He believes that that
> the government _gave_ the private companies exclusive use of the
> resources, when in fact the government _sold_ the private companies
> the exclusive use of the resource. 

The government did not sell them the frequencies but rather a license
to use those frequencies.
>
> There are lots of things for the government to fix after the Bush
> years. Regulating texting rates isn't one of them.

Why not?  It is obviously broken.

-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
> news:878wixqemr.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>
>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>> 
>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>> news:87ljmx6w0n.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>>
>>>> Not regarding the exorbitantly high charges for text messages, which
>>>> is what was being discussed.
>>>
>>> Being discussed as a portion of a greater discussion outlined in the 
>>> title of this thread.  I realize that my comments blow your conspiracy 
>>> theory out of the water, so I don't have an expectation of cooperation 
>>> from you concerning them.
>>>
>> Look, moron, when reasonable estimates of the cost of a text message
>> put it at well under a penny, a 20 cent charge for that message is
>> obviously exorbitantly high.  Lying about alleged "conspiracy theories"
>> is just an attempt to cover up that fact.
>
> It would appear that I am not the moron in this discussion.  And where did 
> I lie, Skippy?

I told you were you lied, retard.  F___ off.


-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
> news:87my7c7eh9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>
>> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
>> 
>>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant with regard to the fact that 20 cents per text message is
>>>> way above what it costs to provide the service.
>>>
>>> Is there some reason, other than your dislike of the practice, that it
>>> should not be?  The price of a restaurant meal is far above what it
>>> costs to produce and serve it!  No one is forced to use the
>>> service. Many of us older folks lived three quarters of our lives
>>> without cell phones or texting at all.  I've been using cell phones
>>> for about twelve years now and have NEVER sent a text message FROM my
>>> phone!
>> 
>> As was pointed out to you, they are using a public resource (the
>> electromagnetic spectrum) with only a few companies calling the shots.
>> The public can reasonably require fair pricing practices in exchange
>> for giving a private company exclusive use of that resource.
>
> Based on what element of law?  Please point me to the FCC regulation that 
> states what you have just posted.

Sigh.  This is an attempted make work project.  The FCC can put all sorts
of regulations on communication systems and often does.



-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
news:87fxd4f7f9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 

> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
> 
>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
>> news:878wixqemr.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>
>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>>> news:87ljmx6w0n.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>>>
>>>>> Not regarding the exorbitantly high charges for text messages,
>>>>> which is what was being discussed.
>>>>
>>>> Being discussed as a portion of a greater discussion outlined in
>>>> the title of this thread.  I realize that my comments blow your
>>>> conspiracy theory out of the water, so I don't have an expectation
>>>> of cooperation from you concerning them.
>>>>
>>> Look, moron, when reasonable estimates of the cost of a text message
>>> put it at well under a penny, a 20 cent charge for that message is
>>> obviously exorbitantly high.  Lying about alleged "conspiracy
>>> theories" is just an attempt to cover up that fact.
>>
>> It would appear that I am not the moron in this discussion.  And
>> where did I lie, Skippy?
> 
> I told you were you lied, retard.  F___ off.
> 
> 

Then you were wrong.  Does that mean that you are the liar?  Or does that 
mean that you are the retard?

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
news:87bpnsf7cw.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 

> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
> 
>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
>> news:87my7c7eh9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>
>>> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant with regard to the fact that 20 cents per text message
>>>>> is way above what it costs to provide the service.
>>>>
>>>> Is there some reason, other than your dislike of the practice, that
>>>> it should not be?  The price of a restaurant meal is far above what
>>>> it costs to produce and serve it!  No one is forced to use the
>>>> service. Many of us older folks lived three quarters of our lives
>>>> without cell phones or texting at all.  I've been using cell phones
>>>> for about twelve years now and have NEVER sent a text message FROM
>>>> my phone!
>>> 
>>> As was pointed out to you, they are using a public resource (the
>>> electromagnetic spectrum) with only a few companies calling the
>>> shots. The public can reasonably require fair pricing practices in
>>> exchange for giving a private company exclusive use of that
>>> resource. 
>>
>> Based on what element of law?  Please point me to the FCC regulation
>> that states what you have just posted.
> 
> Sigh.  This is an attempted make work project.  The FCC can put all
> sorts of regulations on communication systems and often does.
> 
> 
> 

But has yet to do so with pricing of any kind.  And never will, as it would 
represent government interference in free trade and would be overturned in 
a heartbeat.  But thanks for playing.

John Blutarsky wrote:
> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in

>> I told you were you lied, retard.  F___ off.
>>
>>
> 
> Then you were wrong.  Does that mean that you are the liar?  Or does that 
> mean that you are the retard?

It means that it's one more clueless newbie for the kill-file.

His entertainment value came from his willingness to lie and distort. 
Alas, the show is no longer amusing.

John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
> news:87fxd4f7f9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>
>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>
>>> It would appear that I am not the moron in this discussion.  And
>>> where did I lie, Skippy?
>> 
>> I told you were you lied, retard.  F___ off.
>> 
>> 
>
> Then you were wrong.  Does that mean that you are the liar?  Or does that 
> mean that you are the retard?

It means that you are both a liar and a retard. 




-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:

> John Blutarsky wrote:
>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>
>>> I told you were you lied, retard.  F___ off.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Then you were wrong.  Does that mean that you are the liar?  Or does
>> that mean that you are the retard?
>
> It means that it's one more clueless newbie for the kill-file.
>
> His entertainment value came from his willingness to lie and
> distort. Alas, the show is no longer amusing.

Sound like we have a cabal of liars here, all desparately trying
to deny the fact that cell phone companies are charging exhorbitant
rates for text messages - 20 cents for a message that costs under
a penny to process.




-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
> news:87bpnsf7cw.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>
>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>> 
>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
>>> news:87my7c7eh9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>>
>>>> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>>>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>
> But has yet to do so with pricing of any kind.  And never will, as it would 
> represent government interference in free trade and would be overturned in 
> a heartbeat.  But thanks for playing.

Non sequitur, which is typical of you.




-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
news:87ljmv7mo3.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 

> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
> 
>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>> news:87fxd4f7f9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>
>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> It would appear that I am not the moron in this discussion.  And
>>>> where did I lie, Skippy?
>>> 
>>> I told you were you lied, retard.  F___ off.
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>> Then you were wrong.  Does that mean that you are the liar?  Or does
>> that mean that you are the retard?
> 
> It means that you are both a liar and a retard. 
> 
> 
> 
> 

No, I think it means that you just showed your true colors, LJ.  

John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
> news:87ljmv7mo3.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>
>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>> 
>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>> news:87fxd4f7f9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>>
>>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> It would appear that I am not the moron in this discussion.  And
>>>>> where did I lie, Skippy?
>>>> 
>>>> I told you were you lied, retard.  F___ off.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>
>>> Then you were wrong.  Does that mean that you are the liar?  Or does
>>> that mean that you are the retard?
>> 
>> It means that you are both a liar and a retard. 
>
> No, I think it means that you just showed your true colors, LJ.  

More lies from this Blutarsky retard.  You lied, I pointed out where
you lied, and you ignored it and continued to lie anyway.



-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
news:873a93ndoj.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:

> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
> 
>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>> news:87ljmv7mo3.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>
>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>>> news:87fxd4f7f9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>>>
>>>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would appear that I am not the moron in this discussion.  And
>>>>>> where did I lie, Skippy?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I told you were you lied, retard.  F___ off.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> Then you were wrong.  Does that mean that you are the liar?  Or does
>>>> that mean that you are the retard?
>>> 
>>> It means that you are both a liar and a retard. 
>>
>> No, I think it means that you just showed your true colors, LJ.  
> 
> More lies from this Blutarsky retard.  You lied, 

No I didn't.

> I pointed out where
> you lied, 

No you didn't.

> and you ignored it and continued to lie anyway.
> 
> 
> 

No I didn't.  This, however proves a certain amount of desperation on your 
part.

John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
> news:873a93ndoj.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>
>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>> 
>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>> news:87ljmv7mo3.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>>
>>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>>>> news:87fxd4f7f9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would appear that I am not the moron in this discussion.  And
>>>>>>> where did I lie, Skippy?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I told you were you lied, retard.  F___ off.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you were wrong.  Does that mean that you are the liar?  Or does
>>>>> that mean that you are the retard?
>>>> 
>>>> It means that you are both a liar and a retard. 
>>>
>>> No, I think it means that you just showed your true colors, LJ.  
>> 
>> More lies from this Blutarsky retard.  You lied, 
>
> No I didn't.
>
>> I pointed out where
>> you lied, 
>
> No you didn't.
>
>> and you ignored it and continued to lie anyway.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
> No I didn't.  This, however proves a certain amount of desperation on your 
> part.

No, you are a bald-faced lying idiot.



-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
news:87k52epf6u.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 

> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
> 
>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
>> news:873a93ndoj.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>
>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>>> news:87ljmv7mo3.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>>>
>>>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>>>>> news:87fxd4f7f9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would appear that I am not the moron in this discussion. 
>>>>>>>> And where did I lie, Skippy?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I told you were you lied, retard.  F___ off.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you were wrong.  Does that mean that you are the liar?  Or
>>>>>> does that mean that you are the retard?
>>>>> 
>>>>> It means that you are both a liar and a retard. 
>>>>
>>>> No, I think it means that you just showed your true colors, LJ.  
>>> 
>>> More lies from this Blutarsky retard.  You lied, 
>>
>> No I didn't.
>>
>>> I pointed out where
>>> you lied, 
>>
>> No you didn't.
>>
>>> and you ignored it and continued to lie anyway.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>> No I didn't.  This, however proves a certain amount of desperation on
>> your part.
> 
> No, you are a bald-faced lying idiot.
> 
> 
> 

Sorry, LJ- you have proven without a doubt that you are the only mental 
midget in this discussion.

John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
> news:87k52epf6u.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>
>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>
>>> No I didn't.  This, however proves a certain amount of desperation on
>>> your part.
>> 
>> No, you are a bald-faced lying idiot.
>> 
>
> Sorry, LJ- you have proven without a doubt that you are the only mental 
> midget in this discussion.

What you are is an idiot who can't even figure out who he is talking to.





-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
news:87ab393o32.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:

> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
> 
>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>> news:87k52epf6u.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>>
>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> No I didn't.  This, however proves a certain amount of desperation on
>>>> your part.
>>> 
>>> No, you are a bald-faced lying idiot.
>>> 
>>
>> Sorry, LJ- you have proven without a doubt that you are the only mental 
>> midget in this discussion.
> 
> What you are is an idiot who can't even figure out who he is talking to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

I know exactly who I'm talking to, LJ.

John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in 
> news:87ab393o32.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>
>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>> 
>
> I know exactly who I'm talking to, LJ.

You are a real idiot.



-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"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.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Damn... I'm actually going to agree with Navas.

Look up a company called Acision...

"Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:87skh6ajl4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:43:00 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> wrote in <8763e3rryz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>>
>>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>>
>>>> It's actually quite different from email, requiring specific
>>>> infrastructure support, including carrier gateways, as well as backend
>>>> systems.
>>>
>>>It's actually not different - ...
>>
>> You need to read up on how SMS and MMS actually work.
>
> Nonsense - its simply a store-and-forward system. The only cell-phone
> specific part is in moving data to the phones, where they piggyback
> short text messages on a channel that is used for various administrative
> functions and that is normally quiet.
>
>>>> If you've got any real data to back up your claim and accusation, then
>>>> by all means provide it.  Otherwise it's just speculation, and
>>>> uninformed speculation at that.
>>
>>>        Professor Keshav said that once a carrier invests in the
>>>        centralized storage equipment — storing a terabyte now costs
>>>        only $100 and is dropping — and the staff to maintain it, its
>>>        costs are basically covered. "Operating costs are relatively
>>>        insensitive to volume," he said. "It doesn’t cost the carrier
>>>        much more to transmit a hundred million messages than a
>>>        million."
>>
>> This is nonsense from an academic with no real business experience.
>
> Actually, I'd trust him more than someone with your attitude.
>>
>>>The most likely reason for that secrecy is that there is something to
>>>hide.
>>
>> Read up on trade secrets while you're at it.
>
> Trade secrets have nothing to do with it as multiple carriers have
> to be able to interoperate.  Furthermore, the carriers really don't
> implement anything - they simply buy the equipment from companies
> that do the real technical work.
>
> -- 
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Sorry Bill, quite wrong....
Research Acision...

"Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:87hbxj7mlk.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
> 
>> John Blutarsky wrote:
>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>
>>>> I told you were you lied, retard.  F___ off.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then you were wrong.  Does that mean that you are the liar?  Or does
>>> that mean that you are the retard?
>>
>> It means that it's one more clueless newbie for the kill-file.
>>
>> His entertainment value came from his willingness to lie and
>> distort. Alas, the show is no longer amusing.
> 
> Sound like we have a cabal of liars here, all desparately trying
> to deny the fact that cell phone companies are charging exhorbitant
> rates for text messages - 20 cents for a message that costs under
> a penny to process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill, you base your assumptions on 'some scientist' who doesn't have the 'insider' information
necessary to accurately estimate the costs. It is an educated guess - and is almost certainly wrong.

Since I can't discuss this subject because of multiple NDAs I've signed, I can't SHOW that you are wrong.
But, let's just say there is considerably more to this than you state - or obviously realize.

Let's just say I do know what the $$ are - you cannot be more wrong.

"Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> writes:

> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:87bpnvjiez.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>> 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.
>
> Damn... I'm actually going to agree with Navas.
>
> Look up a company called Acision...

For what?  SMS is just a store and forward messaging system.




-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> writes:

> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:87skh6ajl4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:43:00 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>>> wrote in <8763e3rryz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>>>
>>>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> It's actually quite different from email, requiring specific
>>>>> infrastructure support, including carrier gateways, as well as backend
>>>>> systems.
>>>>
>>>>It's actually not different - ...
>>>
>>> You need to read up on how SMS and MMS actually work.
>>
>> Nonsense - its simply a store-and-forward system. The only cell-phone
>> specific part is in moving data to the phones, where they piggyback
>> short text messages on a channel that is used for various administrative
>> functions and that is normally quiet.
>>
>>>>> If you've got any real data to back up your claim and accusation, then
>>>>> by all means provide it.  Otherwise it's just speculation, and
>>>>> uninformed speculation at that.
>>>
>>>>        Professor Keshav said that once a carrier invests in the
>>>>        centralized storage equipment — storing a terabyte now costs
>>>>        only $100 and is dropping — and the staff to maintain it, its
>>>>        costs are basically covered. "Operating costs are relatively
>>>>        insensitive to volume," he said. "It doesn’t cost the carrier
>>>>        much more to transmit a hundred million messages than a
>>>>        million."
>>>
>>> This is nonsense from an academic with no real business experience.
>>
>> Actually, I'd trust him more than someone with your attitude.
>>>
>>>>The most likely reason for that secrecy is that there is something to
>>>>hide.
>>>
>>> Read up on trade secrets while you're at it.
>>
>> Trade secrets have nothing to do with it as multiple carriers have
>> to be able to interoperate.  Furthermore, the carriers really don't
>> implement anything - they simply buy the equipment from companies
>> that do the real technical work.
>
> Sorry Bill, quite wrong....

No, quite right.  The only thing they really need to keep secret is
how low their operating costs actually are.

We have email as a very reasonable model of for what it costs to move
text from one user to another, and the radio portion uses an otherwise
mostly idle channel.



-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> writes:

> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:87hbxj7mlk.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
>

> Bill, you base your assumptions on 'some scientist' who doesn't have
> the 'insider' information necessary to accurately estimate the
> costs. It is an educated guess - and is almost certainly wrong.

It's almost certainly right to within the accuracy needed for this
discussion.  And it wasn't "some scientist" it was a computer
scientist who was working in that general area.

And don't try to pretend otherwise.  Nobody but a fool would believe
you.


-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Ness-Net wrote:
> 
> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:87hbxj7mlk.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>>
>>> John Blutarsky wrote:
>>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>>
>>>>> I told you were you lied, retard.  F___ off.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then you were wrong.  Does that mean that you are the liar?  Or does
>>>> that mean that you are the retard?
>>>
>>> It means that it's one more clueless newbie for the kill-file.
>>>
>>> His entertainment value came from his willingness to lie and
>>> distort. Alas, the show is no longer amusing.
>>
>> Sound like we have a cabal of liars here, all desparately trying
>> to deny the fact that cell phone companies are charging exhorbitant
>> rates for text messages - 20 cents for a message that costs under
>> a penny to process.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
> 
> Bill, you base your assumptions on 'some scientist' who doesn't have the 
> 'insider' information
> necessary to accurately estimate the costs. It is an educated guess - 
> and is almost certainly wrong.
> 
> Since I can't discuss this subject because of multiple NDAs I've signed, 
> I can't SHOW that you are wrong.
> But, let's just say there is considerably more to this than you state - 
> or obviously realize.
> 
> Let's just say I do know what the $$ are - you cannot be more wrong.
> 
> 

You don't have to "text".  Indeed, I spent something like the first 
fifty years of my life without a cell phone.  I got along just fine!
I spent something like the first forty years of my life without 
electronic mail!  Amazing!!

If you don't like the price, don't use the service.  I doubt that VZW or 
whoever will notice or care if they do notice.

There is NO way that you can require someone to sell you goods or 
services you specify at prices you select!

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
news:87ljmse5c7.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 

> "Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> writes:
> 
>> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:87hbxj7mlk.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... 
>>
> 
>> Bill, you base your assumptions on 'some scientist' who doesn't have
>> the 'insider' information necessary to accurately estimate the
>> costs. It is an educated guess - and is almost certainly wrong.
> 
> It's almost certainly right to within the accuracy needed for this
> discussion.  And it wasn't "some scientist" it was a computer
> scientist who was working in that general area.
> 
> And don't try to pretend otherwise.  Nobody but a fool would believe
> you.
> 
> 

Sorry, LJ- Ness has been posting in the cellular groups for years and is 
always spot on with his information.  You would be well served not to get 
into a credibility pissing match with him.

"Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:87tz1ge5jj.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
> "Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> writes:
>>
>> Look up a company called Acision...
> 
> For what?  SMS is just a store and forward messaging system.
> 

Because if you did, you might actually learn something.
And that some people here (exception you) actually know what they are talking about.

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:

> You don't have to "text".  Indeed, I spent something like the first
> fifty years of my life without a cell phone.  I got along just fine!
> I spent something like the first forty years of my life without
> electronic mail!  Amazing!!

So what?  I've used email since the 1970s.  Sometimes text, no matter
how it is sent, is more convenient.

For example, a friend loaned me a gizmo today but it needed a battery,
so I got a text message giving the battery type.  So I didn't have to
make a phone call from the store (or have a pen available when some
voice mail arrived to copy down the part number.

However the real advantage is that it uses less bandwidth for the same
message and unlike voice calls, handoffs aren't an issue.  If everyone
called instead, the rate of dropped calls or the times where voice
service is not available would increase.


-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
> news:87ljmse5c7.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>
>> 
>
> Sorry, LJ- Ness has been posting in the cellular groups for years and is 
> always spot on with his information.  You would be well served not to get 
> into a credibility pissing match with him.

I don't care who "Ness" is.  The lot of you are idiots, and rather
dishonest ones at that.



-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> writes:

> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:87tz1ge5jj.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
>> "Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Look up a company called Acision...
>>
>> For what?  SMS is just a store and forward messaging system.
>>
>
> Because if you did, you might actually learn something.  And that
> some people here (exception you) actually know what they are talking
> about.

Liar.  The facts are that SMS is simply a store and forward message
system, and there is nothing about it that intrinsically makes it
harder.  You are basically transmitting a short message in a digital
format from one device to another, queueing the message when
necessary.

-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Bill Z." wrote:

> Not true - that's why we have antitrust laws.  Cell phone companies
> in particular are using a public resource, radio frequencies, and
> thus should be expected to treat the public fairly in return for
> exclusive access to this public resource.  Think of it as a business
> deal between the cell phone companies and the public.

In Germany, the cell phone companies paid 50 billion EUR solely for
the 3G licenses (at the moment that would be 65 billion USD). At the
moment four operators are left (from six that have bidden).

That's enough for the public, I think.

Cheers Dirk