Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. maluminse's Avatar
    Posts
    14 Posts
    Global Posts
    70 Global Posts
       #1  
    and so am I.....


    http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/114665

    lets write our providers and congressman about this scam. Making a profit is the American way. Ripping off your customers is not.
  2. #2  
    You know, I'd love for them to charge less, but as long as they aren't a monopoly, and as long as they compete without pricefixing, what are they doing wrong? No different than a restaurant charging $8 for a glass of wine when the entire bottle only cost them $10. As long as there is a demand, unfortunately, they can charge what they want.
    Kyocera 6035 > Kyocera 7135 > Treo 600 > Treo 650. All Verizon. Sprint Treo 755p, HTC Mogul & Centro
    Unlocked Treo 680 for trips outside Sprint's areas
  3. #3  
    At least here in Australia we are not charged to receive an SMS. To have to pay to receive a message is just plain wrong.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by RickMG View Post
    You know, I'd love for them to charge less, but as long as they aren't a monopoly, and as long as they compete without pricefixing, what are they doing wrong? No different than a restaurant charging $8 for a glass of wine when the entire bottle only cost them $10. As long as there is a demand, unfortunately, they can charge what they want.
    The argument is that the big three are, essentially, a monopoly. Or, more accurately, an oligopoly. That they've tacitly agreed not to undercut each other on text messaging. Is it true? I don't have enough information to judge, but it's certainly not unlikely. It wouldn't be the first industry in which that kind of colusion occurred.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  5. maluminse's Avatar
    Posts
    14 Posts
    Global Posts
    70 Global Posts
       #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb View Post
    The argument is that the big three are, essentially, a monopoly. Or, more accurately, an oligopoly. That they've tacitly agreed not to undercut each other on text messaging. Is it true? I don't have enough information to judge, but it's certainly not unlikely. It wouldn't be the first industry in which that kind of colusion occurred.
    No your exactly right. Why are the big three packages so similar?

    For 20$ you get unlimited text, phone and data from cricket and pocket. Problem is their coverage is very limited b/c ....their competitors own the towers.

    The point is that their not charging 8 dollars for a $10 bottle of wine. Their charging $20 for something that cost them 0 (according to the article).

    Now in the stock market, and super market there are whats called efficiencies. You make money by exploiting an inefficiency and when you do this the inefficiency disappears.

    For instance if any of us could buy a shovel for $1 and sell it for $10 we would until there were so many people selling at $10 that someone would lower their price to get the sale and the supply of shovels would increase such that demand would be outpaced. This would happen until ...... are you rready? the price dropped to $1!!! (excluding costs)

    So by the very fact that you can sell something which costs 0$ for 20$ indicates a monopoly.

    A few years back I worked at a law firm. There were TWO phone numbers to send subpoenas for all wireless calls but five companys. Why? because big companies buy or set up smaller companies to get market share as if you have a choice in your phone.

    in other words when customer of company B says "screw you im going to company A" when company A is owned by company B, the whole "screw you" is said to the mirror.

    so ..yea.
  6. #6  
    I don't use texting, so may not appreciate your concerns properly, BUT

    Products and services tend to equal out between companies to maintain profit margins. Pepsi and Coke, as an example, sell for basically the same amount wherever you buy them. Doesn't NECESSARILY signify price fixing.

    Beyond that, a person has to decide if the price is worth the service. If not, then don't use it. I do about 6 a month, so am satisfied with the $0.20 per text. If I did more, would probably go with the $5 plan, or the $20 plan if I did lots of them.

    The companies definitely should be paid for the service, whether it costs them much or not. I would agree though, that it would be reasonable to have an intermediate plan available for maybe $10 per month?

    As far as what it COSTS the companies, not sure if we really know the true costs. I am fairly sure, however, that the phones sending texts are eating up bandwidth vs just being on standby waiting for a call. So, the potential is there to tie up the companies resources that might otherwise be used for phone calls. Just speculating on this, as am not 'in the know'.

    Know you won't agree with me, but just my .02
    Last edited by rjuhl; 01/07/2009 at 05:46 AM.
    RJuhl

Posting Permissions