Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

EndlessMac · Aug 12, 2009, 01:43 PM

I just read this interesting article from the The New York Times.

The summary is that we are being forced to use automated messages when people leave us voicemail. Even though we can create our own greetings for callers cell phone carriers still use an automated message on top of our own message that basically repeats what our own personal greeting message would imply or actually say. I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about if you have ever left a voice message for someone with a cell phone.

What the article states is that cell phone companies do that on purpose so that you will use up more minutes on your plan.

In 2007, I spoke at an international cellular conference in Italy. The big buzzword was ARPU--Average Revenue Per User. The seminars all had titles like, "Maximizing ARPU In a Digital Age." And yes, several attendees (cell executives) admitted to me, point-blank, that the voicemail instructions exist primarily to make you use up airtime, thereby maximizing ARPU.

As of right now there is no way to turn off this extra automated greeting message so unless there is a change in the industry we are needlessly losing minutes and basically getting ripped off by the cell phone companies. It's also annoying to have to wait roughly twice as long in order to leave a message because you have to listen to 2 messages if the person you are calling has a personal greeting.

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting article and thought you guys might want to read it since most people have cell phones these days.

Chuckit · Aug 12, 2009, 02:32 PM

Compared to SMS fees, that's downright consumer-friendly.

CharlesS · Aug 12, 2009, 04:05 PM

Yeah, my favorite thing about SMS fees is how they cost money to receive, but that they can be sent for free via e-mail or IM gateways. So if you have an enemy, you can be screwed over quite easily by someone repeatedly sending you free (for them) SMS messages from an IM client and running up your cell phone bill. Why is this allowed?

Laminar · Aug 12, 2009, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Yeah, my favorite thing about SMS fees is how they cost money to receive, but that they can be sent for free via e-mail or IM gateways. So if you have an enemy, you can be screwed over quite easily by someone repeatedly sending you free (for them) SMS messages from an IM client and running up your cell phone bill. Why is this allowed?

Is a user still charged for the text if the user doesn't open the message?

Spheric Harlot · Aug 12, 2009, 04:22 PM

That's one thing i really don't get. How is this possible?

I mean, I'd love free SMS services to work in germany (they don't), but
the way it's set up in the US is just boneheaded.

olePigeon · Aug 12, 2009, 04:48 PM

I used to get messages from AT&T telling me about AT&T services even though I turned off the messaging service. They would charge me money every time AT&T sent me spam.

Turns out that turning it off via the phone doesn't really turn it off, it just stops everyone except AT&T from sending messages to me. So I had to call their stupid number to tell AT&T to stop sending me sh*t I don't want, then charging me for it.

Laminar · Aug 12, 2009, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I used to get messages from AT&T telling me about AT&T services even though I turned off the messaging service. They would charge me money every time AT&T sent me spam.

Turns out that turning it off via the phone doesn't really turn it off, it just stops everyone except AT&T from sending messages to me. So I had to call their stupid number to tell AT&T to stop sending me sh*t I don't want, then charging me for it.

Verizon tells me in their message that the message they're sending is free. I have unlimited texts though, so I don't mind.

ThinkInsane · Aug 12, 2009, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Is a user still charged for the text if the user doesn't open the message?

Oh you betcha!

Rumor · Aug 12, 2009, 08:36 PM

Odd, everytime I get a text from AT&T it is free.

hyteckit · Aug 12, 2009, 08:47 PM

Text from AT&T is free. Checking my voicemail is free. Calling 611 is free.

CharlesS · Aug 12, 2009, 09:31 PM

Pretty sure checking voice mail isn't free, but texts from the carrier and 611 calls usually are. Texts from anyone other than the carrier (including spam), on the other hand...

ghporter · Aug 12, 2009, 10:02 PM

Checking my voicemail is free and I've never seen a charge for it on AT&T. But then you're "in network" then, right? Since they made in network calls free (not counted for plan minutes) I've seen a lot of people talk family and friends into switching to AT&T for the savings.

CharlesS · Aug 12, 2009, 10:21 PM

I admit that it's been a couple of years since I used AT&T, but I thought it used minutes to check voicemail. I definitely know that it did when I was on Verizon (I always checked my VM after 9:00 for this reason). Admittedly, with AT&T I didn't pay as much attention to this because of the rollover minutes, and with my current T-Mobile I've been treating it like an unlimited account, because I have so many minutes I couldn't use them all if I tried.

ghporter · Aug 12, 2009, 10:23 PM

They may actually tally the minutes on the bill, but as far as I know those minutes are free. Of course I burn up "rollover" minutes every month, so that's not a big issue for me and I don't watch it too closely.

- - e r i k - - · Aug 12, 2009, 10:50 PM

The way you have to pay to receive texts in the US is just mind-boggling. As in I can't get my head around it. WHY?

I don't really even see how it works. How do you pay for something you didn't ask to receive? It's odd that consumers put up with this.

CharlesS · Aug 12, 2009, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

The way you have to pay to receive texts in the US is just mind-boggling. As in I can't get my head around it. WHY?

Well, from the carriers' point of view, that's quite easy to answer.

1. Customers get lots of SMS spam

2. Customers pay lots of $$$ to the carrier because of the SMS spam

3. Erik goes ?????

4. Profit!

I don't really even see how it works. How do you pay for something you didn't ask to receive? It's odd that consumers put up with this.

Customers put up with a lot from cell companies over here.

- Crappy networks

- Paying for SMS

- Paying for incoming phone calls

- Phones that you can only get with a certain carrier

- Phones that are locked to a certain carrier even if you do switch at the end of your contract

- Phones with features disabled so that you have to use the carrier's expensive alternative

- High monthly rates because of the subsidies for the crippled phones

Customers put up with it because... what else are you going to do? Not have a cell phone? It's not like there's a carrier somewhere that you can switch to that doesn't do this - they all do it.

- - e r i k - - · Aug 12, 2009, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Customers put up with it because... what else are you going to do? Not have a cell phone? It's not like there's a carrier somewhere that you can switch to that doesn't do this - they all do it.

The joys of an unregulated market, huh?

You'd think that consumers would realise they will always get the **** end of the stick with that kind of system. I mean, what else are you going to do?

IceEnclosure · Aug 13, 2009, 02:40 AM

I've had some sort of unlimited text plan for like 8+ years. No bleeding.

Spheric Harlot · Aug 13, 2009, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

The joys of an unregulated market, huh?

You'd think that consumers would realise they will always get the **** end of the stick with that kind of system. I mean, what else are you going to do?

You mean you don't want to pay for others' right to send you crap you have no control over?

What kind of warped commie capitalism is that!?

ShortcutToMoncton · Aug 14, 2009, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Customers put up with it because... what else are you going to do? Not have a cell phone?

This! I'm off the grid like ****in Rambo

Judge_Fire · Aug 14, 2009, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

I don't really even see how it works. How do you pay for something you didn't ask to receive? It's odd that consumers put up with this.

I've understood the US system is based on the legacy of the caller and receiver paying for their use of their respective networks. In the European system, the idea is that the caller pays for both their own network and the recipients network use, which as a technical setup is more complex, as money needs to shuffled around between companies.

Or something - I've no idea whether that's how things actually work, so feel free to correct me

Thorzdad · Aug 14, 2009, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

You'd think that consumers would realise they will always get the **** end of the stick with that kind of system. I mean, what else are you going to do?

Protest that any change to the rotten system is socialism?

CharlesS · Aug 14, 2009, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Judge_Fire

I've understood the US system is based on the legacy of the caller and receiver paying for their use of their respective networks.

No... only the receiver. The sender can send SMS messages via e-mail or IM for free.

ghporter · Aug 14, 2009, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

No... only the receiver. The sender can send SMS messages via e-mail or IM for free.

There seems to be no functional difference between sending a message via SMS from a phone or from a computer as email-except that you don't get charged for sending an individual email, of course.

IMs seem to be billed weird, though. You'd think that IMs on a phone were just like IMs online, but that's not really the case.

Originally Posted by AT&T

Pay-Per-Use Charges: Text/Instant Messaging $0.20 per message

from this page. Yes, it's pretty deeply buried, but IMs using a phone's built-in app are charged just like text messages.

I would HOPE that iPhone IM apps were just like regular IM apps and sent via the Internet...

- - e r i k - - · Aug 14, 2009, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

I would HOPE that iPhone IM apps were just like regular IM apps and sent via the Internet...

They are.

Charging per IM? Now THAT's shady.

Captain Obvious · Aug 14, 2009, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

IMs seem to be billed weird, though. You'd think that IMs on a phone were just like IMs online, but that's not really the case. from this page. Yes, it's pretty deeply buried, but IMs using a phone's built-in app are charged just like text messages.

not really.
Dumb phones are not connected to the cellular data network the entire time so they can't really run an IM application properly so they use SMS to send and receive messages. Its not elegant but its a logical work around. Most smart phones today don't always have to do it this way. I can use AIM and be billed for data rather than SMS on verizon.
In the last 5 years ATT has come to suck in every way possible way I can think of for a wireless company and they are the worst at finding nickels and dimes to get their customers for. Prior to the Cingular merger they didnt charge for incoming SMS messages but once it went through the services and policies went to hell

ort888 · Aug 14, 2009, 06:22 PM

Charging money per text message is still the most ridiculous thing ever.

ghporter · Aug 14, 2009, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

not really.
Dumb phones are not connected to the cellular data network the entire time so they can't really run an IM application properly so they use SMS to send and receive messages. Its not elegant but its a logical work around.

Indeed, it makes sense. This particular phone has a "mobile browser" and can be set up for a limited number of email servers, so it "looks like it's online." The fact that many features ARE NOT the same as Internet applications is not made clear, leading to some serious confusion.