On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, duncan wrote:
> discourages people from trying and seeing if they like it. text messages
> are a symptom of this thought. at an average price of 10 pence per message
> its actually a very expensive method of communication, if the cost was
> reduced to 5 pence per message im sure the profit would increase as the
> number of messages would go up to such an extent that the higher profit
> margin would be negated.
Something rings a bell in my head that (recently) it was reported that the
phone companies didn't want people sending more SMS messages because the
network was at capacity. Ironically, the first PAYG phone I had charged 5p
per message (and still does). Since then it went up.
> = more profit, even though sales are falling. 3g mobile networks will
> shoot themselves in the foot if the pricing of text messaging doesnt drop
> significantly - because why do i want to pay 40p for sending 50k of data (a
But do they have the real backend network infrastructure to deal with it?
I don't know.
> picture with orange), when i am currently paying 10p to send 160 bytes of
> text. t-mobile are charging 20 quid per month and give you an allowance of
> 10 meg of pictures allowed to be sent that month.
I pay for (at least) 1Mb of GPRS per month (which I use quite heavily) and
in general it's fuck all use for anything except mudding, where I can work
for an hour and only use 40Kb. The packet loss at link level is about 50%,
it drops connection every 10 minutes (Hey, I thought this was meant to be
"always on", I daresay if I tie up one of Vodafone's modems for 24 hours
they won't make me a popular person.) With a web browser, I'll haul down a
meg in no time. Small pages have lost popularity now that so many people
have broadband.
S.
--
Shevek
I am the Borg.
sub AUTOLOAD{my$i=$AUTOLOAD;my$x=shift;$i=~s/^.*://;print"$x\n";eval
qq{*$AUTOLOAD=sub{my\$x=shift;return unless \$x%$i;&{$x}(\$x);};};}
foreach my $i (3..65535) { &{'2'}($i); }
