The True Price of SMS Messages
Posted by Sam at January 28th, 2008
I just found out that AT&T (A-fee&fee?) is raising their text message pricing. When I first signed up for AT&T 6 or so years ago it cost 10 cents to send an SMS message, and it was free to receive them.
When AT&T switched to Cingular the price of sending a message dropped to 5 cents, but they started charging for incoming texts - also 5 cents. Assuming you send a message for every message you receive, this works out at about the same price as before.
AT&T came back online and phased out the CIngular brand name, and prices were again changed. This time to 15 cents each way.
More changes have taken place that I can’t quite remember. At one point text messages were 10 cents either way, and at another point they even included MMS (multimedia messages) at the same price as SMS.
As of March SMS messages on AT&T will cost 20 cents and MMS will cost 30 cents - both to send a receive.
So let’s do some math here, and figure out how much this simple transmission is actually costing us.
A standard SMS message contains up to 140 bytes (1120 bits) of data - this takes care of the 160 characters allowed in your text message. This might not make sense at first, until you realize that SMS uses 7 - not 8 - bit characters - leaving you with 128 possible character values instead of the normal 256. So 1120bits/7bits = 160 characters.
So our total message length is about a tenth of a kilobyte (.13671875 Kbytes). In terms that the iPod generation would understand - if you had an iPod with a tenth of a kilobyte you could fit 1/4000th of a song on it. I assume here and for the rest of this article that 1 song = 4 Megabytes.
If you divide 140 (the total number of bytes available to you) by 20 (the cost per message), you find that you are paying 1 cent for every 7 bytes of data. This leaves you with a cost of $1,497.97 for the 1024Kbytes contained in a single megabyte. iPod users: It would cost you $5,991.88 to transfer - not even to buy - a single song via SMS.
By comparison, I pay $50 a month for a soft bandwidth limit of 500 gigabytes through a local ISP. That comes out to 512,000 megabytes or 10,240 megabytes to the dollar. This allows me to transfer 2,560 songs for the same price as a Junior Bacon Cheeseburger off the value menu at Wendy’s: $1. I will use this my standard measurement for the rest of this article.
So far I can make the following statements concerning the costs of bandwidth:
Cost to transfer 2560 songs:
From my ISP: $1
Via SMS messaging: $15,339,212.80
But wait, there’s more!
When calculating SMS charges, most people don’t take into consideration that the message is really being paid for twice! If I send a message to another AT&T user, I am paying to send it AND they’re paying to receive it! This should probably be illegal, but that’s for another discussion.
So how much does an SMS message actually cost? Not 20 cents - but 40 cents! This doubles all of my numbers above.
Furthermore, my above figures estimate that people actually use all 160 characters available to them. Say people on average actually only used half of that (which is still being generous) - then their price of data has again doubled from the numbers I gave above!
Making adjustments for both of the above statements, we realize that our above number isn’t even close to correct! Corrected, the comparison looks more like this:
COSTS OF TRANSFERING 2,560 MP3s:
via my ISP: $1
via SMS: $61,356,851.20
Phew! THAT is premium data! It’s no wonder that SMS texting alone is a 100 Billion dollar a year industry!
How big is that? Take all of hollywood movie box office revenues worldwide. Add all of the global music industry revenues. And add all of videogaming revenues around the world. Even all those three together, we don’t reach 100 billion.
Let’s even go more premium - how much would it cost to hand deliver data?
The U.S. Postal service is currently charging 41 cents for this privilege (hmm.. only one cent more that AT&T charges to automatically handle an SMS message). So how much written data could we send in a letter?
Google says 250 is considered the standard words per page measurement, and a sheet of paper weighs about 4.5 grams. The U.S. postal service allows your letters to weigh up to 1 ounce before charging you more, which is just over 28 grams. So you could send 6 sheets of paper, minus 1 for the envelope. If you write on both sides that gives you 2500 words (10 pages x 250 words).
According to this page, the average english word is 5 characters long. Add in a space for every word and you have 6 characters per word or 1500 characters for page for a total of 15,000 characters.
Now we are not limited in any way in the types of characters we can use, but let’s assume we are using a 256 character (8 bit) set.
Our letter therefore gives us ~14Kbytes for 41 cents. To transfer an MP3 using this method, we would be looking at about $119.95. To transfer 2,560 MP3s, that comes out to only $307,072. We would also need to take into consideration the bulk rate, but for the sake of argument (and because I don’t feel like figuring it out), let’s leave it where it’s at.
The cost would drop dramatically if we compressed the data onto, say a DVD and our cost would be something more like $1.20.
Updating our chart from above:
COSTS OF TRANSFERING 2,560 MP3s:
TCP/IP: $1
TCP/SMS: $61,356,851.20
TCP/USPS: $307,072.00 (Bits written out on paper)
So getting a SMS delivered is bit for bit 200x more expensive than getting a message hand delivered to your doorstep anywhere in the United States.
What exactly justifies making SMS messages sixty one million times more expensive than ISP data and 200x more expensive than TCP/USPS? How come technology, communication, and infrastructure is getting cheaper while the costs of SMS messages are increasing exponentially? My theory: SMS messages are transfered over air made of solid gold.
edit: A few readers pointed out that from the title, this article sounds more like it’s about the carrier’s internal cost for transmitting SMS messages. For that, we turn to an informed slashdot poster:
I know the true cost of SMS messages!
I made a paper for the univeristy some years ago. The marginal cost of a SMS is 0.
They do have a little cost/opportunity. As a matter of fact SMS messages are sent on the control channel. Initially SMS were implemented in the GSM standard as a control system, just like the ICMP protocol of the IP stack. Then NOKIA though to implement a actual instant message function using SMS. The Contol channel is the channel that your mobile listens to in order to receive calls. So for receiving a SMS a control signal is sent. Since bandwidht is somehow limited on these channels it could happen that in a situation of massive usage of texting the control channel gets saturated and normal voice protocol initiation is disrupted. To prevent this carriers nowadays apply a kind of QoS delaying SMSs until there is no risk of congestion. So we can state that the marginal cost is 0 and the cost/opportunity is also 0
Another story is for the MMSs. Their cost/opportunity is even lower since they run almost enterely on GPRS thus using most bandwidht on normal data channels. Thus a MMS with pictures sounds and maybe video SHOULD cost less than a SMS.
So you wonder, why do I pay so much for a SMS or a MMS or even a Call: after the debts for the initial hardware infrastructure have been paid by the carrier you are still paying because of market segmentation (You won’t change the carrier on the fly) and a little monopoly (Almost impossible to start a new carrier from 0).


This is exactly the reason I’m dumping AT&T as my carrier when they shutdown their TDMA service. I refuse to allow them to continue to squeeze my wallet any further.
morris
Sprint: SERO plan. $30!! : 500minutes, unlimited SMS, MMS, and data (accessed through the phone only, phone as a modem costs extra). With taxes and fees $36/month
There isn’t one great provider that won’t give you any problems. Every provider sucks for some reason or another, but if there’s something important to you in a plan and everyone else can give it to you better than your current provider, leave that provider.
I would pay $30/month just for voice so I can figure my SMS costs to be $0 and my data to be $0.
Paint Junkie
@Jake: Actually, Sprint raised the price of their SMS messages from $.15 to $.20 at the end of last year.
AT&T has text message plans as well, but this article deals with the raw per message costs - not the costs of some “unlimited” plan.
Also, you have a special plan - which can’t really compare. And even the SERO plan doesn’t have free texts anymore (As of Dec. 31 2007).
Sam
I feel like there needs to be a drastic change in the way mobile technology works. 4 years ago I paid like 30 bucks a month and had free texting and lots of minutes, now I have less and pay more.
Dan
hi guys..
im lucky that in my country, one sms only cost about 10 cents.. thats about 3 cents u.s dollar.
hash
you are comparing net bandwith (SMS) with gross bandwith (ISP). Won’t change the ration much but to be correct you need to remove all that protocol overhead you’re paying for (e.g. HTTP headers) but have no actual use of.
Paul
Front page of Slashdot!! Congratulations on a great article!
Nathan Zohner
SMS messages work different with billing in different countries too remember. Just bypass the carrier altogether and use the internet to send them for free like onsmsfun.com.au for example. US is the only country im aware of that has INCREASED sms costs in the last 10 years.
jane
about the character set in sms-messaging. iirc sms uses ‘gsm 03.38′ as it’s character set - that is to say 127 different characters - so 7bit but not us ascii
miika
what about all the HTTP headers from the SMS? It’s more than just the actual physical data of the words that servers need to parse and that is caught up in bandwidth. 20 cents does seem like a lot but think about it….. we (the users) have put carriers in a position where they don’t need to lower the price.
Matt
This is why I love living in Europe! Here in Portugal I don’t pay a penny to receive messages. And my prepaid plan allows 250 free messages per day within my network (about 4 million users). To other networks the price is 16 euro cents a message!!
The U.S. might be great at al other technology but in cell phones it is seriously lagging Europe!
Renato
This is why I love living in Europe! Here in Portugal I don’t pay a penny to receive messages. And my prepaid plan allows 250 free messages per day within my network (about 4 million users). To other networks the price is 16 euro cents a message!!
The U.S. might be great at al other technology but in cell phones it is seriously lagging Europe!
Renato
I love India, Cost of SMS Rs 1 depending on your plan (1USD = INR 40) that works out to be 2.5c. Incoming is free …
allb
In Serbia, it costs about 2RSD, which is about 0.04USD. No fee for receiving. Price may double if you send it abroad (depends where you send). But most of the plans include some amount of free SMSs. And I still consider that expensive.
Tomislav
They let customers pay for receiving sms!? How ridiculous is that?
Matthias
The true cost of the SMS (to the company) is zero (at least where GSM is concerned). Carriers have a certain amount of time-critical data channels, which is where voice traffic goes - but SMS messages don’t. SMS messages are transferred over the non-time critical control channels, which cost the carrier absolutely nothing to use. The only downside is that they’re low bandwidth; sufficiently low to preclude the use of voice over them, but high enough to handle ~1KB of data every now and then.
Which means that every single SMS you ever send is pure profit for the carrier.
Goten Xiao
I’ve heard that US users came late to the SMS Generation - as of a couple years ago, not many Americans were actually using SMS.
So I guess your carriers have just noticed - “hey, this looks like it’s becoming popular and we can charge a premium for it”.
But man, charging to RECEIVE a message - crikey!
JP
If I’d send bytes over the USPS, I’d probably stick em to a micro-SD first, and mail that…

2-4 GB in 10 grams, stick it in a envelope, put a single stamp on it and go
Lot faster then re-typing those sheets of paper
FooBar
The European Community hit some European Telcos over their roaming prices, and are going after the SMS and Data-services just now.
Just about time, not only in the US.
Pointernil
I’d never heard of having to pay for received SMS messages before I read this article. That must suck…
Matias Korhonen
What Sam fails to point out is the data worth and focuses simply on the cost per bit. Fat pipes low cost per bit, thin pipes high cost per bit.
But surely a bit is a bit? Recently in UK News it was reported that a CD was lost with personal data on, in the context of this article, the CD costs about 20 pence for about 800MBytes about 0.025 pence per MByte, so why did it make the news? Because of the nature of the data and to illustrate this point further, it is only the 1KBytes or so, of data that relate directly to you that is important.
What is the message worth that is sent 2 minutes after leavng your loved one, simply saying "I love you". Is this worth 4p or would you wait until you get home and send an email at a cost of 0.00000x pence, because it is cheaper.
SMS is for sending messages not downloading songs, it uses a finite resource and shares that resource with the control traffic in the mobile network. It is a thin pipe!
I am not defending high prices simply pointing out that data is more than the 1s and 0s and the delivery method is significant. If you do not like the high price then do not use it or switch. But maybe it is too convienient to use on the move or the message is about now and will not wait.
Please keep the apples and oranges separate.
Spav
In the UK we have a handy piece of legislation called the ‘Unsolicited Goods and Services Act’ which probably stops carriers from charging users for receiving SMS. You cannot be charged for something which you have not specifically asked. However, we get charged up to 1 USD to send MMS!
PaulieWomble
Shucks! Never heard telco companies charging customers for receiving sms messages! In New Zealand its 20cents to send and free to receive.
Kiwi Dude
Nice idea and good read regarding the value for money comparison.
The bit from the “informed poster” on the cost of SMS might not be complete. Consider that there is at least one additional piece of equipment in the SMS and MMS transmission involved (SMS-C resp MMS-C) that is solely purchased, integrated, operated and maintained for the reason to do the forwarding of the messages. This is additional cost which might be low per message but you just can’t say it is zero.
Daniel
Everyone who says the cost to send an SMS is 0, its not. there are now interconnect fees between many (most?) networks, so thats a few cents/pennies right there. in the UK we pay between 0p (im on 600 free messages a month) and 10p-12p on pay as you go (even then most have free messages)
the US system of paying to send and recieve is just crazy!!
Free SMS
I can see why SMS has never taken off in the US if they charge you to receive as well as send! Here in the UK the typical cost is 10p per message ($0.20), and MMSes are 4 times that. I’m just about to switch to Orange actually because they do an unlimited-free-SMS tarriff now, about time too.
Seb
If it actually doesn’t cost extra on the network to transport the SMS messages, then the logical conclusion is that the leadership behind the US telcos does not have honorable intentions to the welfare of society. They should not be trusted to be around government officials and law makers. And I’m not in favor of government control, but considering their size and monopoly tendencies maybe the deserve it.
Ideally they should be offering cheaper prices as more users join their networks to share the cost. Drawn to it’s logical conclusion the mobile telcos should transition into a wireless ISP where voice/data are one and the same at a flat rate. Unless perhaps an analog conversion is needed.
Every other industry retires old features into the base package and then develops something new to draw a new purchase or a new customer. But the telco industry never seems to reduce the price of anything. So we are still paying monthly for caller ID plans like they are something hard to implement. Does this always happen in a monopoly situation?
For the mobile carriers, we should have seen this coming when the first locked cell phones arrived … back in the day.
Pixels
Great article, I have been saying this for years. It is one thing to pay both way for text messages, but remember also that here in the US we also pay both ways for our cellphone calls. When I make a peak time call to another cellphone that is not on my network we are both paying for that phone call!
B
Russia: 0.95 RUR per SMS, near 24.5 RUR per USD (outgoing, all incoming for free and there is a law about ‘double pricing’, you’ll never pay for incoming calls or SMS/MMS).
Its really bizzare practice - 20 c. per SMS!
Free Researcher
that is an insane amount of money to spend for an sms service. I think that the best idea would be to hammer in cheap wireless and then voice-skype instead.
darklooshkin
I guess you never considered the fact you can get unlimited SMS msg’s for a price. Which is what these companies are trying to get people to do. They want each person to pay 20 bucks extra per month for unlimited text. So by jacking up the cost of each indiv msg, it will push people to changing their plan.
steve
That’s why there are internet-based SMS and MMS services for low low fees recently.
It is not possible to compare the price against snail mail or door-to-door delivery of messages since time is not taken into consideration. For example, it takes you few minutes to receive the SMS while, at best, you get your door-to-door delivery in hours.
geekborj
The US is so advanced in so many ways but it is hopelessly backward in the SMS business. The premium value of SMS is what get layered over it. Every other developing country has free or low cost SMS and these create huge market penetration.
iceman
oh, i also forgot. i think we should also take into consideration the idea that you can receive messages ON THE GO. That’s another variable there. You have to also consider power consumption on emitting the EM signal (24/7) plus the continuous maintenance of connections and services. Thus, so far, you have considered the gross income but not the NET INCOME.
Even so, i really think you have a good point here. Maybe they are charging too much. But i guess not that too much.
geekborj
SMS is a huge profit center for telcos. It’s about like extended warranties in profit. SMS uses the voice channel that transmits the “ring” signal, hence the small size limit. This is also why some older phones that do not have web capability can still send and receive text messages. It is indeed obscene to wring that sort of fee out of a tiny bit of bandwidth that is necessary for voice service, but only used in short bursts. To get that great Sprint SERO deal mentioned in an earlier post, all you need is a Sprint employee’s email address.
Ardent
The excessive cost for sending and receiving text messages may be reaching a critical point in my opinion as the text spam continues to spread throughout the country and affect more phones.
JM
Quite interesting also is how I’m currently posting from my iOverpricedPhone on the unlimited data plan that you’re required by default to have (19.99). I can browse the web, send email with pictures attached, and stream media as much as I want, but I can’t send more than 200 of those little instant messages between phones.
Rick S.
You made a mistake when calculating transfers via ISP. The person you are transfering to ALSO pays an ISP so they have an internet connection. Therefore, your reasoning for doubling SMS costs, and not ISP costs, is false.
Still a very large number, certainly, but not 61 million times larger.
Sean
Don’t forget about the headers in every SMS message. I’m not sure how many bytes this accounts for, but it does matter. Also, with Verizon anyways, when you send an text to another Verizon phone you get notification that the text was recieved. This means another SMS is sent from the recievering phone to the sending phone.
I think the prices were slight exaggerations as well. What about $10 or $15 / mo unlimited plans? I think it is still overpriced, but worth a mention.
Kyle
I might do a similar study on the current SMS situation here in the Philippines. Thanks for the tip.
joe
I Denmark where I live a SMS costs between 5 øre and 25 øre, that is approximately 1-5 cents (US). It’s free to receive.
You can get unlimited SMS’es for 60-100 kr. (12-20$).
One minute is 60 øre and up (12 cents) with no obligations, no minimum use, no per month rate etc.
You can have unlimited voice (well up to 48 hours/month), unlimited SMS, unlimited MMS for 500 kr/md (100$/md).
I think these prices are fair, - but of course it can (and will) be cheaper over time.
Biggest problem is unlimited data. Until recently one megabyte was 10 kr or more (2 US $). But this have changed now. One megabyte is now 1,50 kr (30 cents) or you can have unlimited from approximately 200 kr (40 US$).
That should be cheaper!
DaDane
The problem is that SMS messages are transferred on the signal channel in GSM systems. This channel transfers the call signals and used to coordinate the phones.
So, this channel is expensive, at the start this was the reason of the high price of 5 cents.
After that, came gprs, and you have phones that can be configured to send sms via gprs. But then it would be obvious that it costs nothing to the telco, so be it, use the simple sms service.
Telcos are evil.
Szundi
The slashdot item about the opportunity cost reminds me of something I heard from a former telecom CEO who was talking about “value added” propositions. He said that many added features like call waiting are, like SMS messaging, a no-cost proposition for the telco. So they not only get people to pay extra for something that costs the telco nada, they also wind up with more completed calls and billable minutes. Same for voice mail — used to be we hung up after 10 rings and called back later. We had no charge for the incomplete call. Now the voice mail kicks in after 4 rings and the call is now billable.
And try to get a mobile phone without bells and whistles like SMS, cameras that take pictures of the inside of your pocket, and automatic voice mail services. Feh!
Elmo
I would love to see this comparison done against the typical cost for digital voice transmission, which is what most phones are doing these days. How does the cost of X bytes of SMS differ from the costs of X bytes of voice…Let us see, I get 450 min/mo for about $40 (but I get unlimited min nights, weekends and anytime to other Verizon customers — that tosses a wrench in the calcs). That is 11.25 min/$1. Typical MP3s are around 1M/min, so say the phone is 100 times smaller, that is 10K/min. So, for about $1, I can transfer about 110K of digital voice data.At a mere nickel to send SMS, I can send about 3K of SMS data for $1 — assuming I can use all 160 char/message every time.That makes SMS data a mere 36 times more expensive that digital voice (ignoring all of the time that digital voice is free, of course). This is only from my point of view, as I only pay for one side (and the author failed to include the cost of internet service for the source of his data, too).Quite a bit lower than the apples/oranges comparison made by the author, but still ridiculous. Other pricing plans will vary, of course, I am likely near the best case from the SMS side of this comparison, many better plans will increase the gap. Especially since the cell companies do indeed dip twice.Please, PLEASE correct me if I am wrong…
nurbles
lol well the major telco here is aus has an option so a txt only costs 1c so like 100 txts for every dollar, but only to other users of the telco
Spalooga
This article contains only a fraction of the full story of SMS economics in the United States. While SMS originally used the control channel, the huge amount of SMS traffic we are seeing now in the US makes that impossible. (The average US carriers transmits right now per month as many messages as all of the UK - the average large US carrier has also about as many or more customers and the UK has inhabitants). In most GSM carriers, and by default CDMA carriers since they have no control channel, a regular data channel is used for SMS traffic. This costs money and opportunity cost. Also the increase in SMS traffic requires further acquisition of gateways, which cost money. The messages use electricity… all in all for an intra-carrier SMS the cost if much closer to 0.1 cent. Still not a lot of money, but there is cost associated with it. Then we also have to consider that inter-carrier SMS in the US is not conducted via direct interconnect like in Europe, but through gateway providers such as Sybase 365 and Verisign/WiderThan. The going rate is a high fraction of a cent to provide that connection per message.
Also what the article assumes is that all pricing decision are made on a “cost plus” basis, which is not really founded in reality. Most sophisticated pricing decisions are based on a perceived value added approach. The true motivation behind the US carrier’s approach to single SMS pricing is their desire to entice customers to sign up for bundles that give the customer a lower cost than the European 10 cents and give the carrier more predictable revenue. The customers who pay 20 cents per SMS fall into two categories. Light users who are captive users and largely price insensitive due to the small amount of messages sent or uneducated/indifferent users who somehow not care how much they spent (the large segment of consumers that are not rational profit maximizers)
RXE
Actually, a modern network provider does need to have an SMSC because SMS is used for phone provisioning, so this is not an incremental cost WRT providing SMS services to the customer. I’m not sure if the same situation exists for the MMSC.
Also, let’s be a bit more precise about just how the SMS messages get transmitted. First, you have to RACH to connect to the network, that takes precious bandwidth. Then you get assigned either an SD (on fraction of an SDCCH) or, depending on the design of the network, a FACCH. SDCCHs are statically allocated in a network and can become a bottleneck if the usage patterns are not what the provider expected. FACCH use normal TCH (traffic channels), so are a bit more flexable.
Please forgive me if I got one of the acronyms wrong, I haven’t designed BSS software in a decade.
David
try helio - unlimited SMS/MMS/data… I never realized how useful SMS could be until I had a plan that was unlimited. Of course I have to be aware of friends who aren’t on unlimited plans!
shawnson
Not that I am in support of the high cost of SMS and MMS, but i feel that one of the telco costs has been ignored.
When they purchase the systems that support the text messaging, said purveyor may have slipped in some usage fees. For example the system may have an annual support and service fee. the makers of the system may also rate the system for a specified number of messages , after which there will be incremental fees for messages handled.
I do not have the actual numbers around this, but it would be interesting to see what they are, because I know they exist.
Michael
Paying to receive an sms?
how sick is that? i pay roughly 80 USD a month but for that i get a really low cost for calls, free SMS and MMS(send and receive from all companies in Denmark) i also get to use MSN Messenger from my mobile phone for free from anywhere in Denmark…
Bechster
that’s just corporate theft, straight up and center……
here (south east asia) it costs less than about 0.06USD to send and nothing to receive SMS
Marxz
In Russia, I have a pretty typical plan; I pay about a $1 monthly (that includes 50 SMS), $0.04 per any additional SMS, and each outgoing call costs $0.12/minute. Incoming calls and SMSes are free. But GPRS costs about $0.10 per megabyte, so I prefer to use a J2ME-client to chat with people using gtalk/AIM/ICQ, rather than to send any SMSes.
Honeyman
Of course, for USPS you would not use paper to transmit your MP3s, you would buy a CD-R and mail that. Total cost should be under $10 for all materials & postage - nicely protected.
Keeps it digital too, so it is a better standard for comparison.
Tom
There are some possibilities to send SMS from web sites, or programs like Skype. We offer the posibility to send SMS to Cuba (15 Ctvos USD) and to the rest of the world in (33 ctvos USD)
Peter Manager SMS company
When I started to use a cell phone with Telus Canada. SMS was FREE. And now it cost 5cents and more. What a crappy system. Canada and US providers are the most expensive in the world.
Etienne
How about comparing SMS to GPRS or voice data?
Since all these services are chargeable on the cell phone, they should technically have the same cost. First, GPRS. Aside from the fact they use different protocols, just a simple bandwith calculation. My provider is Rogers Wireless. Without a data plan, GPRS data costs me 5 cents per KB. Therefore, I can transmit 1024/120= 8.5 full sms messages, or 0.6 cents per message.
And the voice data? Regular phone conversation runs at about 4kbps(that alone is awesome compression). that means that for every second it transmits about half a kilobyte of data. Without a monthly plan one minute will cost you about 30 cents. That’s 0.5 cents per second, or one cent per kilobyte. At THAT rate, SMS should cost 0.12 cents each.
Kvantum
Pricing like this means the market allows this pricing and the businesses are maximizing the value. This arrangement reminds me of what happened with ATMs over the past few decades–ATM usage used to be free, justified by the savings in teller overhead, then gained fees as the banks saw a market potentials in addition to the overhead savings. ATM use dropped so much that ATMs began to disappear as people got out of the habit of using them. SMS and MMS will eventually be replaced with true IM and e-mail clients as technology evolves to the point modern cell phones have the same facilities and internet connectivity as PCs had a decade prior.
esmith512
nice article, here in Colombia we only pay for the sms and calls we make, we don’t pay for the calls or sms we recieve.
César
how about this.
2500 songs at 4 MB /song = 10,000 MB a 16 GB flash drive is $84. now add two stamps to be safe and well you can now send
2500 songs for $84.82 : not only that but the pendrive is reusable so you can keep sending it for $0.82
cheaper then printing it out
engrpiman
Well… It is like this..
The pizza guys shows up with a pizza box…
OOH pepperoni! I didn’t order this but I love pepperoni..
10 bucks…
or
Onions and olives… ugh… I dont really like those… I dont think I even ordered pizza.
10 bucks…
or
Hey I didn’t a pizza… WTF!! Why does the box only have 3 slices???
10 bucks….
Bizzle
@ Renato:
The reason for the differences in how the mobile providers operate in Europe vs the US/Canada is primarily based on how they came into being.
In Europe, the mobile operators were initially arms of the state-owned and operated telcos in most countries. As such, their mandates were the same.
In the US/Canada, however, although the telcos were also involved, others developed the initial networks. And the services in their infancies weren’t as regulated, nor were they regulated in the same way as the telcos. Too, the telcos were state-mandated monopolies, but they were not a part of the state.
That explains why in the US/Canada we had parallel advancement of the CDMA, GSM, and TDMA infrastructures–no government intervention. (We let the market determine the outcome).
Yet in Europe, the EU wanted to have a common standard and GSM was cheap to implement.
Because the European mobile operators were part of the state telcos, incoming calls could not be charged for. (And since you never started out paying for an incoming call, you won’t ever.)
Because the US/Canada mobile operators weren’t state controlled, they could set whatever pricing models they wanted, and they charged for both incoming and outgoing calls according to your individual plan.
In those early days, you could probably have made a good point for charging for both because the network was being built, and the costs are not insignificant. But the counter-point could be made that you could simply charge enough for the service to begin with.
For the present, I think we can make the point that we get milked enough by the mobile carriers, and a change would be welcome.
Woadan
~Please note that Sprint has some plans where your incoming calls are free. However, the price is higher than its other plans, and the number of minutes is less than in the non-incoming plans.
Woadan
I’ve roamed on AT&T with Virgin Mobile and Orange (UK). Even when roaming most GSM carriers do not charge for receiving SMS messages.
Which makes the really insane position that a roaming user of AT&T’s service is receiving texts free while a local user is being shafted, despite the roaming inbound SMS coming from possibly halfway around the world.
Soruk
> My theory: SMS messages are transfered over air > made of solid gold.
This sounds about right.
One could certainly argue that RF spectrum is currently one of the most valuable commodities - look at the current 700 MHz band auction, which last time I looked was up to $3.2 billion.
It’s unfair to compare the cost of a severely limited commodity (RF spectrum) with that of something like land line based broadband (e.g. DSL), whose capacity is (basically) limited only by the infrastructure you’re willing to build.
Jason
The article says:
> So our total message length is about a
> tenth of a kilobyte (.13671875 Kbytes).
The 1.367… number is correct, but summarizing that is one tenth is a bit odd. It’s between one seventh and one eighth. It doesn’t affect the conclusion that AT&T is ripping off consumers, but it struck me as odd.
Bruce Dawson
Is there not a slight mistake in the article ? 1/4000 th of a 4 Megabytes song leaves us with 1Ko, not with a tenth of it, doesn’t it ?
ExtraCharacter
None of ya are getting anything FREE, it’s included in the fees you pay. This seems a petty thing to point out, but when we call things like this free, we are lying to ourselves.
no free lunch
Its amazing, the analysis may not have completely taken care of the underlying protocols in exact for the cost calculation, BUT i m sure its very close to the actual calculations.
I am in Pakistan and I pay 0.23 PKR for sending SMS and nothing for receiving. (60PKR=$1USD).
Amazing!
Usman
In the US, we are supposed to have a regulatory commision called the FCC to look after the consumer’s interests. But unfortunately, the carriers have managed consistently to ensure that the FCC does what is best for the carriers and continue to nickel and dime the consumers.
If this situation continues, you can bid goodbye to global competitiveness - given that the US is at least 3/5 years behind the Asian/European markets in the mobile market.
It is very depressing to see that you cannot do moble e-commerce whereas in India, I can buy my airline tickets using SMS!
Wakeup Americans - fight the big company monopoly!
Norman Duffield
SERO now includes unlimited SMS again (as of 01/01/08, valid until 2/18).
That notwithstanding, you’re exactly right in that the pricing of SMS is mainly designed to force customers, even light-use customers, to carry a messaging package, because at 20c a message, you only need to send/receive 25 messages total before that $5 a month cheapie message plan comes in handy, but the odds are good that someone on such a low plan probably won’t send/receive many text messages, so it’s all gravy.
To people saying that the cellular companies face a marginal cost per message: I seriously doubt it, because of the existence of unlimited message packages. If Interexchange operators really charged “high fractions of a cent” then anyone sending more messages a month off-network than they’re paying in cents for their plan would be costing them money. Cellular networks don’t let customers who cost them money stay on the network.
I have an unlimited SMS package and have used over 4,000 in one month, almost none of them to subscribers of my network. For this package, I pay $9.99, yet if you believe people that say carriers are paying close to 1c, we’ll say .6c as a ’significant fraction’ of a cent. That’s $24 in these costs alone.
Yet carriers keep offering unlimited SMS packages, so these fees are either obviously less, or the carriers just lump all SMS profits into one big bucket that they then gloat about having.
Greg Leffler
Bummer! It is so weird hearing about SMS receiving charges as a European. Also, I pay only 3 eurocents per sent message.
EU guy
Yeah allb, you love India for the texting rates, I love America for the running water, garbage removal system and overall sense of civilization we manage to maintain.
But yea, I mean, we pay more for texts.
Sean
lol it seems phone companies are worse than the oil companies.
anon
In France my provider charges 0.15 Eur / Sms, and even better 0.3 Eur to archive a voice mail message - 1 min @ 13 kbps - Figure out the cost of a 500 GB Hard disk at this rate !
nico
Same - SMS is still free under SERO. Every time they reach the deadline, they push it back again. Right now the deadline to sign up for SERO and get free SMS is February 16. Recently it was December 31; before that it was September 30.
You don’t need a Sprint employee’s email address anymore. Sprint has created a pseudo-address that anybody can use. Details are at http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=563252
Fernando
To the few people claiming that the US are usually so advanced with regards to technology: Have you ever been there? If you look at cellphones (at least 5 (3) years behind Asia (Euope)), computers (okay-ish, but nothing revolutionary happening here), or in a more broad spectrum houses (ever hear of brick walls? No wonder hurricanes and earthquakes manage to destoy whole cities) or even public transportation (mostly buses - how very advanced…), the US are NOWHERE near the standards that prevail in Western Europe and parts of Asia (especially Japan).
So this shouldn’t exactly come as a surprise. I am also mildly shocked that nobody has sued the carriers yet for charging for incoming messages. With incoming calls (that you have to pay for, too), you at least have the option of not answering, but you cannot choose to receive a message or not. I’m waiting for a case where a kid uses up all the money on their prepaid card because of incoming messages and isn’t able to call their parents in a “real” emergency. If something like this happens, there’s going to be hell to pay…
Cynical
SMS is sent as control messages for virtually nothing along with GSM voice data, but you forget that over 90 % of the costs to the phone company are incurred by the billing process.
Daniel von Asmuth
Last time I checked America was a free country with a capitalist driven economy, so if people are willing to pay the cost, then the companies will keep pushing it out. If you don’t like it, change providers! Problem solved.
Fatal Claws
With my vodafone EUR 22.50 a month plan in the Netherlands, I have 150 minutes of calling or SMS messages. Extra messages are EUR 0.15, but then you can get the EUR 2 a month “double the amount of messages” offer, or the EUR 10 a month “send an extra 1000 messages a month” offer. It’s a one year contract including phone.
A Euro is 1,47 USD, so the basic costs are about 20 cents per sent message. Oh, and receiving calls and messages is free.
In a way it’s a rip-off, as the real costs are under 2 cents per message (check what the prices are if you send them in bulk), but it’s including the phone.
nl
I have a smartphone with Alltel and I get free incoming/outgoing SMS/MSS to all 3 lines on my account. Alltel FTW!
Brian
I dread people sending me Text Messages, SOOOO expensive in the US.
marshal
From the telco’s side of things — keep in mind that every time you have a text communication, you are deferring use of voice minutes.
I certainly am not defending the telcos on their enormous rate hikes for text, however if text were free, voice use would bottom out and people would get cheaper minute plans. When the telcos built out their networks, they invested heavily in circuit switching for voice and they still need to realize profits from these investments — so raising the text rates props up voice minute usage.
Eriic
Luckily in my country each sms costs 1 paisa i.e. .025 cents!!
maddy
SMS do cost a lot of money to implement, especially on the scale it is being used (the US has come to this phenomonen very late).
In other countries where SMS is much more prevalent than the US, the signaling infrastructure in groaning under the strain-all telcos live in fear of New Year’s Eve.
The control channel being used to deliver SMS runs over SS7 TDM, which traditionally has been very expensive technology. Many are now moving this to IP based signaling, but at some point all this stuff crosses some expensive boxes.
The SMS-C vendors have a solid history of greed, with lots of licence and usage charges. This is also changing.
The main issue in the US is that they have only really “discovered” SMS in the last year or two and the carriers see a new revenue stream and they also need to keep demand down through pricing - so as not to kill their networks.
The US has always charged for received calls. This is because their numbering plan (and generally screwed up telephone system following the ATT/Bell debacles) didn’t allow a new number range. So, nobody could tell how much a call to a mobile would cost unless you actually knew you were calling a mobile. So, the receiver paid to receive the call, and the caller paid the standard rate for that area code. The person who got the “value” of mobility paid the premium.
In most of the rest of the world, mobiles were put in a new number range and everybody knew they were calling a mobile and that it would cost more. Initially, this dampened demand, since businesses initially blocked their PABX from calling them for cost-control reasons. That is, until they realised that everybody that they needed to do business with was on the road.
So basically business paid through the nose in the early days and helped give mobile technology its commercial start in life.
One more thing - although many things about the US phone system are problematic, they typically never charged for local calls, which european carriers made a fortune out of.
SMS man
In Italy you even have to pay to receive a call.
Hristo
Charging a lot for something that costs very little is a sign of lack of competition.
Back in the day, Ma Bell charged a few bucks a month for touch tone dialing. Not the phone. Just the service, itself. Clever, that. Flip a bit in the central office’s memory and collect 4 dollars a month - forever.
Again, this sort of thing says, “Monopoly!” Consider Windows XP and Vista variants.
felix
(1) Don’t pay it if you don’t like it; switch providers.
(2) Nobody writes bits out on paper. Ship a USB key instead. If you want to enforce it as paper, use high density bar codes instead of handwriting; it will save you time and money.
Trejkaz
For people on bundles, the cost of sending and receiving SMS is actually the same or lower in the US than in Europe. Also, if you look at usage figures, the US has now approached if not exceeded European levels and that while US voice traffic figures are still a multiple of EU voice traffic figures.
If the rates charged in the US would be such barrier to adoption, why has that happened? Regardless of what someone charges, some people always feel ripped off. The biggest barrier to adoption in the both the US and Europe was the initial lack of inter-carrier SMS.
RXE
That’s why I don’t use neither SMS nor MMS and I shall never use those pity so called messages.
float
lol that sucks…Here in Bulgaria i pay 6$ tax for 1000minutes and 400 free sms to my operator and for the other 2 operators in the country i pay 0.7cents for sms and there’s no income tax.For a 30seconds call i pay 15cents and for 1 minute 30cents with the other operators.So i don’t know what AT&T are doing but it smells really fishy…
Mitko
Mmmmmm, maybe the one and only solution is switching to internet mobiles(!) like Nokia N810 or Skype devices or …
Then you can forget GSM, GPRS, SMS, MMS and other related protocols, and use those lovely protocols over TCP/IP, with a cheap wifi connection.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
ps: In Iran, we should pay about 100Rls for an SMS, its about 1 cent. But we dont have MMS or GPRS, we have its devices, but they cannot provide them….. because we, bad guys n girls, send porno/political pictures/musics to each other!!!!!!!
Omid
Do you know that SMS transmission is free for a telecommunications company? The SMS is send via a signal line not data or voice line. This signal line is the line used for checking if everything is ok in the network.
I worked at Orange and I know that SMS is one of the biggest profit sources.
T.
Tinu
I think this is the reason why a different set of Mobile Devices have started from the US (Blackberry). In reaction to the SMS being so expensive in the states internet based mobiles were more easily and early adopted. In Europe, only recently we got those and still are struggling with Symbian Smartphones and some of Windows Mobile.
Whetever the price of the SMS you shouldn’t being charged on receiving.
I find it unethical, as a form of blackmail, to be given the option to read it and get charged or discard it. If it doesn’t ask you, then I can see how an attack can be made on a victim’s phone bill by spamming SMS from the web.
Chris
Great global discussion about SMS!
Vale Kelley
This makes no sense. It’s pointless to compare the SMS charges with the cost of transferring bytes over the wire or the cost of sending a letter on a per-byte basis because the value of SMS to a customer is not about transferring as many bytes as possible to the other end. The value is about delivering a message to the recipient right then and there no matter where the recipient is. If you think SMS is too expensive, hop into an Internet cafe and send an e-mail, or write down your thoughts in a letter and hand it to the post office. Then you can write as many bytes as you want. Nobody is forcing you to use SMS.
Tom
Sending 1000 SMS messages in terms of data transfer is probably the same as saying “..mmm..” only once on the digital voice cell system these days..
Arash
Nice article. Anyways in India SMS costs around 2.5C. No charges for incoming SMS.
Anil Wadghule
You Americans are definitely being ripped off by the mobile telcom companies. In the UK and elsewhere in Europe we do not pay to receive text messages at all, and many of us do not pay to send them either. Clearly, since you lot have been paying from the start, and have bought into the psychology of texting, they are gonna try and milk you dry for as long as possible. For an excellent discussion of the psychology of texting see Patterson, A. (2005), Processes, Relationships, Settings, Products and Consumers: The Case for Qualitative Diary Research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8 (2) pp 142-156.
Darren Fielding
Never knew there are operators who charge for incoming SMS. It’s just unfair. Seems like some kind of monopoly to me.
You can’t reject incoming SMS, can you?
Here in Republic of Georgia you pay ~2 US cents for outgoing SMS to any mobile in the world, and for incoming SMS you pay zero.
BUT on the other hand the average salary here is about $200 per month.
Honestly, I’d prefer to live in united states, have my $80.000/year and pay 20 cents for incoming/outgoing sms
alex
Never knew there are operators who charge for incoming SMS. It’s just unfair. Seems like some kind of monopoly to me.
You can’t reject incoming SMS, can you?
Here in Republic of Georgia you pay ~2 US cents for outgoing SMS to any mobile in the world, and for incoming SMS you pay zero.
BUT on the other hand the average salary here is about $200 per month.
Honestly, I’d prefer to live in united states, have my $80.000/year and pay 20 cents for incoming/outgoing sms
alex
Never knew there are operators who charge for incoming SMS. It’s just unfair. Seems like some kind of monopoly to me.
You can’t reject incoming SMS, can you?
Here in Republic of Georgia you pay ~2 US cents for outgoing SMS to any mobile in the world, and for incoming SMS you pay zero.
BUT on the other hand the average salary here is about $200 per month.
Honestly, I’d prefer to live in united states, have my $80.000/year and pay 20 cents for incoming/outgoing sms
alex
Never knew there are operators who charge for incoming SMS. It’s just unfair. Seems like some kind of monopoly to me.
You can’t reject incoming SMS, can you?
Here in Republic of Georgia you pay ~2 US cents for outgoing SMS to any mobile in the world, and for incoming SMS you pay zero.
BUT on the other hand the average salary here is about $200 per month.
Honestly, I’d prefer to live in united states, have my $80.000/year and pay 20 cents for incoming/outgoing sms
alex
In Europe (austria) i get 1000 sms free each month at telering (t-mobile)
Martin
Here in India, SMS costs just 15 paise. Thats 0.37 cents.
http://indyablog.blogspot.com
Why would we expect anything different out of an industry that attempts to hold you hostage with $200 plus cancellation fees, automatic renewals of the contract for the slightest changes to the plan, and 60 cents per minute overage charges for the same talk minutes that you paid 3 cents for when you were within your limit? If congress needs to investigate anyone, it’s the cellphone racketeers. Thieves, the whole lot of them.
Hank Lynch
OOooh. I feel sorry for you. Over here in the Czech Republic, it costs 15 (or a bit more) cents to send and they’re free to receive. Unfortunately, because of the rising exchange rate, it used to be only 5-10 cents.
Michael H
Well SMS is free in India…yah you heard me…FREE…so long suckers
Jasmeet
Awesome post! Luckily I only send like 10-20 SMSs per month, and they’re covered on my iPhone plan.
Omer Zach
From where I sit, Google is poised to strke at the mobile phone industry. Evidence can be seen in the development of Android, the acquisition of several chat and call routing services and reported negotiations with Ebay for Skype.
With all factors combined, I see a web capable device that leverages Wi-Max to provide Voip phone service, video conferencing and teathering for laptops. All of this with an open platform for developers to create for.
Things will be changing soon.
Michael
From where I sit, Google is poised to strke at the mobile phone industry. Evidence can be seen in the development of Android, the acquisition of several chat and call routing services and reported negotiations with Ebay for Skype.
With all factors combined, I see a web capable device that leverages Wi-Max to provide Voip phone service, video conferencing and teathering in our future. All of this with an open platform for developers to create for.
Things will be changing soon.
Michael
Just pay the $10.00 and get their unlimited sms.
Jason
Just pay the $10.00 and get their unlimited sms.
Jason
Ur ryt about AFee& Fee. They dnt usuly chrg mch way bk. I rmmbr my wyf sndng me unlmtd txt msgs 3 yrs ago whn thyr still Cingular bec they dnt chrg evn a penny. i go to websites dat snd free txt msgs anywhere 4 free. in the philippines txt msging is only $0.03/txt msg (160 characters/msg) and $0.30 to other countries. its probbly d hype that these mobile companies are taking advntage of.
ericb
Ur ryt about AFee& Fee. They dnt usuly chrg mch way bk. I rmmbr my wyf sndng me unlmtd txt msgs 3 yrs ago whn thyr still Cingular bec they dnt chrg evn a penny. i go to websites dat snd free txt msgs anywhere 4 free. in the philippines txt msging is only $0.03/txt msg (160 characters/msg) and $0.30 to other countries. its probbly d hype that these mobile companies are taking advntage of.
ericb
most expensive SMS are in germany!
19 cent for one SMS! 
Free SMS
Making a comparison between SMS and IP bandwidth is similar to comparing a San Pellegrino mineral water with plain tap water.
To be more specific: $2 per 750 ml San Pellegrino against $0.000537 per 1000ml tap water. This makes a drop of San Pellegrino almost 5000 times more expensive than a drip of tap water.
Question: will you start drinking less mineral water because of that? No!
Now back to SMS. Why has reached the value of SMS the status of a bottle of Italian mineral water?
- Because it works every (internet doesn’t, ask your mom)
- Because you can reach over 3 billion people with it day and night
- Because it offers a simple and unique means of highly personal communication that IP cannot (yet) mimic.
- Shall I go on? Nah,.. guess you catch my drift…
I’ll stay with SMS and so do most of you complainers I am sure…
Martijn Brouns - Acision
@Martijn Brouns
Well that whole diatribe is nice and dandy, but I can’t say it means much coming from someone working at Acision (”The messaging and charging company of choice for over 300 network operators and service providers worldwide.”)
That’s like Exxon telling us that hybrids and electric cars are evil.
Nice try though, seriously, I would have done the same thing.
Sam