-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How impressed have you been with the 2026 Amazon Prime Day deals?
Well from what I understand is, sms and voice are prioritised on the hardware, and doesn't use the same authentication/scheme than actual data channels. Thus they pay for the equipment and add a little of BS then you get your 10x pricing.
ckleynhans
Active Member
ECONOMIC SENSE
The issue with using the Control Channel may play a role. Remember that we are talking of huge quantities of small size messages that needs to be managed and routed. The cost overhead of the content of the message is probably less than actually getting it through th e network. But the cost is still too high and we should look at the profit that is generated by these messages to realise that they do it because they can get away with it. They can get away with it because we have a monopoly based on a sort of gentleman's agreement. If one company drops revenue on SMS's, the other will follow suit and all will loose out on some handsome profits.
Another reason is that SMS's cuts into profits made on voice calls. It is efficient in that the essence of the message is conveyed on SMS and the recipient can read it when he has the time. It is less disturbing in meetings. One normally tends to talk a lot of nonsense on voice calls that has nothing to do with the main message that needs to get accross.
If all SMS's had a guaranteed relatively short delivery time (several seconds), it would be even more usefull. It may then be used to control devices reliably.
In the long term SMS's over the control channel will die out when everybody gets connected to data services and use email or MMS.
The issue with using the Control Channel may play a role. Remember that we are talking of huge quantities of small size messages that needs to be managed and routed. The cost overhead of the content of the message is probably less than actually getting it through th e network. But the cost is still too high and we should look at the profit that is generated by these messages to realise that they do it because they can get away with it. They can get away with it because we have a monopoly based on a sort of gentleman's agreement. If one company drops revenue on SMS's, the other will follow suit and all will loose out on some handsome profits.
Another reason is that SMS's cuts into profits made on voice calls. It is efficient in that the essence of the message is conveyed on SMS and the recipient can read it when he has the time. It is less disturbing in meetings. One normally tends to talk a lot of nonsense on voice calls that has nothing to do with the main message that needs to get accross.
If all SMS's had a guaranteed relatively short delivery time (several seconds), it would be even more usefull. It may then be used to control devices reliably.
In the long term SMS's over the control channel will die out when everybody gets connected to data services and use email or MMS.
I think smses are a perfect example of how cellular operators try to protect their profit margins at the expense of progress.
I find it very hard to believe that cellular operators have yet to find a way to send smses via more traditional internet protocols, or to develop new ones. Using the excuse that the infrastructure required to send smses are costly helps them fend off any critisism that test messages are overpriced, which of course they are.
And I don't think its helpful to tell people to phone instead because not everyone can afford a high phone bill. Besides which, you would merely be trading one overpriced service for another.
I find it very hard to believe that cellular operators have yet to find a way to send smses via more traditional internet protocols, or to develop new ones. Using the excuse that the infrastructure required to send smses are costly helps them fend off any critisism that test messages are overpriced, which of course they are.
And I don't think its helpful to tell people to phone instead because not everyone can afford a high phone bill. Besides which, you would merely be trading one overpriced service for another.
From what i know MTN doesn't even deliver their own SMS's they outsourced the whole operation to some dude's who graduated from UJ and wrote the SMS gateway thingy.. in ERLang http://www.erlang.org/.. But what i know it works and MTN is happy to pay them.. it does cost nothing
HavocXphere
Honorary Master
Spot on.
The thing is...why is neither MTN or VC moving on this. The SMSs cost basically nothing to send (marginal cost)....so in a competitive market the market rate should tend towards the price.
Just look at Virgin mobile and their unlimited SMSs. And don't tell me its because VM doesn't have infrastructure to maintain...cause I doubt VC is providing VM with services @ below cost.
The [email protected] isn't working.
(Or maybe the sms is only arriving next week)I remember reading about the cost of sms's to the mobile companies some time last year. It was an article referring to Aussie companies - it said it costs them less than Aussie-1c per sms.
Surely it must be similar here - maybe a couple of cents at most.
Surely it must be similar here - maybe a couple of cents at most.
Rouxenator
Dank meme lord
I use fring a lot since I got Symbian. It runs in the background and costs a lot less than anything else.
Chevron
Serial breaker of phones
Spot on.
The thing is...why is neither MTN or VC moving on this. The SMSs cost basically nothing to send (marginal cost)....so in a competitive market the market rate should tend towards the price.
Just look at Virgin mobile and their unlimited SMSs. And don't tell me its because VM doesn't have infrastructure to maintain...cause I doubt VC is providing VM with services @ below cost.
The [email protected] isn't working.
You mean cell c.
mongwopman
New Member
thats obviously local texts only, try to text overseas....each text = R1.80.
My GF live sin the UK and each month i spend about R600 to R900 a month on TEXT ALONE!
When I called all the Cell provider's (Vodacom, MTN, Cell C) not one of them offer's a discounted package for texting internationally......across every single contract or pay-as-you go scheme that they all offer!
Such a ripoff!
My GF live sin the UK and each month i spend about R600 to R900 a month on TEXT ALONE!
When I called all the Cell provider's (Vodacom, MTN, Cell C) not one of them offer's a discounted package for texting internationally......across every single contract or pay-as-you go scheme that they all offer!
Such a ripoff!
Rouxenator
Dank meme lord
fring ?
fz1
Senior Member
Just tested mine, and I haven't received my test message yet (and it has not bounced either). Maybe now that e-mail is ubiquitous on cell phones, they closed this 'loophole' to cheaper instant communication...
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
rpm, did you send the request to Dot's team?
While I don't have the costs, the main difference between SMS an IM includes:
- a SMS uses the GSM control channel to send the message. This is the same channel that sets up a GSM voice call, so if the channel is being used to deliver a SMS, it cannot set up a requested voice call.
- Not only does it use the control channel but it does so a few times per SMS (the sending side, the receiving side, and then the delivery reports). So it uses a fair amount of resources that could have been used for voice.
- SMS is a store and forward system and the system will attempt to deliver the SMS for an extended period of time, anywhere in the world. As already stated this requires the use of network engines (SMSC's) to do this.
- An Instant Message is between 2 end devices and there is no guaranteed delivery or store and forward capabilities on the network. It's just a best-effort setup.
So it would make sense to see SMS and IM as two different products with different parameters and usage and then pick the one that's more suitable to your requirement.
On the costing, I do know that before ICASA approves any tariff they look at all costs to deliver the service and will only then approve (or not) a tariff plan.
fz1
Senior Member
HavocXphere
Honorary Master
And cell c has an infrastructure sharing agreement with *vodacom*.
Well if ICASA says its ok . . .
