DOJ Ends Inquiry Into Soaring SMS Prices

said by Steve B:

Nope....its still BS though, lol.

said by Steve B:

Boy do you guys really miss the point a lot....it is BS. Its BS because its not always a viable option for people to stop SMS. The carriers are taking advantage of that and again, its BS.

said by burner50:

Whats BS? Providing a service for a price that the market will apparently bear?

I see no reason the DOJ should be involved.

Dont want to pay for text messages? Block them.

said by thevorpal:

AT&T reused my phone number. I get text messages from people I don't know and even worse, automated services that this other guy used.

I WANT to use text messages, but only 1-2 per month. Why should I have to BLOCK all access to a service because AT&T is such a moneygrubbing entity?

said by iansltx:

Those people who use SMS regularly have an SMS plan for $10-$20. Problem solved. It's only the occasional users that get burned with per-message fees.

A local wireless carrier has unlimited incoming SMSes still (all providers used to do that) and I think 10¢ per SMS out. On one of their other plans it's 5¢ per SMS out. Unlimited SMS is $12 per month. There's also Tracfone, where SMSes cost 0.3 units each way, where a unit is a minute. So my parents pay about 3¢ per SMS. A regional unlimited carrier, Pocket Communications, includes unlimited SMS in even their low-end $25 plan. CricKet offers free incoming text messages, though you can't do outgoing unless you have a plan above $25-$35 (varies depending on your area).

Yes, that still leaves the "big four" postpaid carriers, but you should expect to be ripped off in some way if you don't spend fifteen minutes looking at alternatives for your area. If you don't like text messaging, turn it off. If you like text messaging, get a texting pack. Cut 'n' dry.

said by sonicmerlin:

The reality is their actions were directly the result of collusion, a byproduct of limited competition.

said by espaeth:

You should contact the DoJ with your documentation to support this statement, because their investigators were apparently unable find any evidence of this.

said by Steve B:

As its pointed out in my original post, SMS has been around long enough to where its become another important communications tool. For a lot of people stopping SMS is like asking them to stop with regular mail. It can't be done, which means that we have to choose the lesser of two evils.

said by tshirt:

So you are saying that they actually developed a product which has high demand/high value (to some) and are choosing to charge as much as the market will allow?
Nothing illegal about that.

said by Goober:

The only thing being demonstrated is that prices have risen in lockstep. That's it. Nothing more in the absence of evidence. Lockstep rising prices happen all the time, even in the absence of collusion.

You people really are clueless.

said by Goober:

I don't have to. The onus is on the person alleging anti-competitive behavior.

You show me element-by-element how the carriers have violated the Sherman Anti-trust Act.

said by tshirt:

So you are saying that they actually developed a product which has high demand/high value (to some) and are choosing to charge as much as the market will allow?

said by Steve B:

As its pointed out in my original post, SMS has been around long enough to where its become another important communications tool.

said by Hazy Arc:

It's apparent that people willingly pay for said service, no matter the price.

I don't see how you can fault the company for that.

said by openbox9:

Block text messages I haven't receive a text message in 3 years.

said by Hazy Arc:

It's apparent that people willingly pay for said service, no matter the price.

I don't see how you can fault the company for that.

said by alxjm69 :

Companies have figured out that the best way to make money is by.... not being competitive? Why lower your prices on services and goods when you can raise them. Of course, another company/corporation will see that and do the same.

I think its a smart way for companies to react as opposed to lowering prices and perhaps having said company fail. This is looking out for the bottom line and investors and keeping jobs?

We can argue about what is a need or a want, but in the end, most of us are still paying for it. Until a company comes along that can disrupt a service in any industry, prices will only get higher.

They figured it out (not to be price competitive) and they don't really have to be in collusion. Rather smart I say again for them, but stupid for consumers.

said by elray:

I'm not sure where, or how, you shop.

Every single cellphone package I've negotiated over the last two years has been substantially cheaper than the package it replaced.

said by patcat88:

But what about your average bill? How many minutes you got with the old plan? How often did you go over? How many minutes with your new plan? do you use all your minutes? if not, why are you paying for minutes that you don't use?

said by patcat88:

Prepaid cellphones often "expire" minutes if you don't use them, or require refills of a minimum amount every X amount of day. That establishes that you can't pay less by using less. If I use less resources, I get no discount. Its not cheaper, they are just selling warranties you will probably never use...

said by in2depp4546 :

The problem is incredibly deep, and the focus right now is on jobs not SMS fees. But give him time to sort out this mess, it's not easy when the previous administration left such a big mess behind.

said by NOVA_Guy:

There are far many more reasons to be disappointed in the abysmal failure that is the Obama administration. But I digress...

Obama could have placed pressure on the DOJ to investigate further, but he did not. The Bush Administration could have started an investigation into this, but they did n... oops, I guess they did... Well, score one for him. Finally something that's not his fault?

The problems we're facing with the wireless industry (among many other industries) would be the same no matter who was in office, though. Do you actually think that corporations like Verizon and AT&T only pick one side in an election? If one takes the time to do research, I'm sure that it would easily be discovered that they play both sides of the aisle.

said by tdouglas22:

But, doesn't the cost of EVERYTHING continue to go up over time? Some things have gotten a better price (unlimited minutes and unlimited text) in the form of a combo-package. But still, nothing costs as much as it did in the past. People make more money now than they did 15 years ago (on average of course). Once wages go up, so do prices because people end up with a little more disposable income. The other thing to keep in mind is that it depends on the product/service being sold as to how much a price can go up OR down.

I'm not so much as frustrated with prices going up.... I'm one of the guys upset about how all this profit is not being used to provide broadband access to under served areas. Even if it was just DSL service with 1/512 speeds, it would be a great improvement.

said by n2jtx:

I am not surprised though I am troubled that DOJ staff got paid to actually generate this report.

To be honest, I have no problem with SMS pricing. It is called Capitalism. If you do not like the individual SMS message pricing, pay the protection money to cover yourself or turn it off like I did. I used to putter around with it when incoming was free and outgoing was $.05. However, once the prices started going up, I realized I really didn't need it any price.

I am waiting for the next laugh when all carriers raise their prices to $.25.

said by FBGuy:

i use google voice. free sms is great.

said by munky99999:

Carrier 1 sets the price to 20 cents per message. Doesnt care about the short term consequences if it's used against them. Which is a tiny or meaningless thing if it does. If the other carriers dont notice; chances are the customer wont neither; if the other carriers do notice; they either change themselves to be as such... or they dont and the nothing really changes.

The other carriers see the same thing; the users are dumb enough not to notice. So all the other carriers raise price also.

There takes no collusion in doing this. It only takes stupid consumers.

Though yes. It only takes 1 carrier to screw up that plan. Though how much does it even screw them up? Even with a commercial designed around this... it's almost a non-issue to the dumb consumers. While the smart consumer gets a 5 gig dataplan which is called unlimited but really isnt. Then pushes the text feature into the data plan side.

The glad thing I see. WIND mobile in Canada is giving unlimited incoming texting. 5$ for unlimited offnetwork texting. otherwise you get 50 texts. The reality is; the big carriers are screwing everyone over with the texting costs. So equally so you get screwed over. The balance is that incoming texts to wind's network from the carriers can be screwed over also; carrier to carrier.

Meh. The situation should be fixed; CRTC and FCC should come together and plainly say NO. FREE texting to everyone.

said by del ftl :

It all boils down to the carrier loved contracts. If the US regulated that consumers could not be forced into a contract, or contracts could be no longer than a few months, then real competition could probably take hold.

I'm sorry but somoene on a 2 year contract with verizon so they could get a 75 dollar flip phone for free, is not in any postion to shop around for better sms prices, let alone better service prices. Then to make matters more complex, when the contract is up they struggle to leave because:

1. friends and family are on vzw so they cant afford not to have the mobile to mobile minutes
2. they dont want the hassle of trying to port
3. they have to sign a new 2yr contract with another provider anyways for another new flip phone.
4. The only thinking about cell phones comes from the apple/att/vzw ads they see on tv

This is a case not of simple sms collusion but of carefully crafted industry marketing and pricing together that makes american cell phone service way more costly than it needs to be. To be fair, there are a plethora of lower cost carriers to choose from, but consumers either dont know about them, or are worried that they wont be good enough even though 99% of their calls are placed near their home in densely populated metro areas.

The fact that vzw has good reception and even 3G in Lost Springs (look it up), Wyoming should be irrelevant to 99.9% of American consumers, yet their subscribers run around cheering about how they have the most comprehensive nationwide coverage. Really? Is it worth spending several hundred more dollars a year for voice/txt/data fees just in that off chance you find yourself in the middle of wyoming needing to make a phone call, you wont have to pay the 50cent per minute roaming charge?

In a nutshell. It's my opinion that the competition is there, but too many Americans are too stupid to or too oblivious to choose a better option, open their eyes by removing or limiting ETFs.

said by amungus:

Least I get incoming SMS/pics/calls free through my carrier...

Finally went with a txt plan awhile ago since I sent enough one month to add up to their cheapest plan. $5 for adding a bunch of texts, whatever. Should be free, but $5 is good enough. Even if it weren't free, $5 should cover an unlimited amount (which it does not, I only get something like 250).

I do feel for those who get charged for incoming, that's just plain wrong.