RSSVerizon Wireless to raise fees for service-related texts
By Tim Conneally | Published October 10, 2008, 3:23 PM
Verizon Wireless sent an announcement to partner companies this week that it will add a 3¢ fee for Mobile Terminated (MT) messages on the first of November.
There are generally three types of SMS traffic: Mobile Originated/Application Terminated, Application Originated/Mobile Terminated, and Mobile Originated/Mobile Terminated. Each type of SMS exchange is used for different purposes. For example, Mobile Originated/Application Terminated messages are used for text message voting systems.
Verizon's "MT" is a rather broad category, but for the purposes of the 3¢ charge (as first reported by RCR Wireless), it refers to any SMS that is sent from a service to a user, like Amazon's TextBuyIt, where users receive pricing information on products via text message, or Google SMS, where searches are performed over text messages.
The notice Verizon distributed says the fee applies to standard rate and premium programs as stipulated in the Commercial Services agreement with OpenMarket. Of course, this fee is limited to Verizon's partners that work in compliance with FCC, CTIA and MMA guidelines. According to Direct Marketing Association survey in July, text message marketing returns a 70% response rate versus the 30% response rate to e-mail marketing. Marketing professionals around the net seem to share the opinion that this fee will put an early stop on a marketing technique with a lot of promise.
...And text spammers remain unaffected.
Just serveral more reasons not to subscribe to the overpriced cell services.
Of course those relying on texting when you can (more often than not) call someone, and if you miss them, leave a voice message have a few fundamental issues they might want to deal with.
Score: 0
|Why not give the owner of the phone .01ct for each on of these lame SMS's.. Or stop charging for SMS message....
Score: 0
|Funny how that Europe and Asia move to completely free text messaging on all their networks, American companies are increasing fees for text messaging in the USA. Also, companies such as Verizon own all the hardware and the networks these text messages travel over, and unlike email they do not have to incur an expense of storing these messages. There is little to no expense generated for these companies by customers sending text messages. It is a scam and nothing more.
Score: 0
|Not to be a "NU-UHHHH!" type person, but saying that Verizon doesn't incurr fees for txting is like saying they operate their towers on farts and dreams. Each additional text message means they have to increase their capacity by that much.
NOW ... because I am paying for unlimited txt msging to ANYBODY, I should be able to RECEIVE txt msgs from ANYBODY because, technically, *I* am paying for these messages.
I guess their position is, "Well we've been charging those using cell-cell conversations on each side, so why not do it w/ txt msging as well!" While this doesn't make sense at all, I'm sure this is what they're going for... or hoping the American public doesn't raise a stink about it...
Score: 0
|"own all the hardware and networks..."
Huh?
So, you've never seen or heard of people texting each other who are on different provider networks? You obviously don't have teenage kids.
Score: 0
|Really? So their bandwidth requirements are based upon the sum of the total number of messages sent, and not upon the peak load/capacity at a given moment?
Each additional text message does not require increasing bandwidth, as capacity is not based upon the sum total of all messages, but rather on the total concurrent number of messages transacted - and this does not even factor in the ability to load balance by means of re-routing transmissions as well as the option to 'time-s***' text only transmissions.
Cell technology ws a disruptive technology relative to landline plant - and yet with double dipping per transaction pricing as well as subscription rates, plus any number of other manufactured charges that actually cost nothing to process, you maintain they need this revenue.
In response to you claim: "NH-UHHHH!"
Score: 0
|