The mess with messaging

AT&T subscribers let out a collective groan yesterday when the carrier announced it was raising text messaging fees by 5 cents. For those customers not using a messaging bundle plan, text messages will now cost 20 cents to send and receive while multimedia messages (aka picture messages) will now cost 30 cents to send and receive.

Though it's hardly unusual for companies to raise prices and fees over time, you may remember that it was just over a year ago, December of 2006 to be exact, that AT&T (then Cingular) boosted its messaging rates from 10 cents to 15 cents for every received message. What's more, AT&T now joins Sprint in charging the highest messaging rates among the major U.S. carriers. Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Alltel charge 15 cents per sent and received message, but even that isn't exactly cheap.

Sure, it's very true that a messaging plan is the best option for frequent texting fans, but I still have a beef with constantly rising messaging rates for a couple of reasons. First off, it's ridiculous that wireless subscribers in the United States need to pay to receive text messages, and secondly, customers should be able to cite increased fees as a legitimate reason for ending their contracts without paying an early termination fee.

My readers and friends from abroad typically have a few complaints about cell phone service in the United States. The lack of high-end phones is a predictable gripe, but they also tell me that they're shocked that they have to pay to receive a text--at which point I usually nod with a sympathetic smile and just say "I know." Why the United States developed such a pricing scheme is still a mystery to me. I've tried to find a good reason, but like so other many other quirks of this country's wireless landscape, an answer remains baffling.

To me, it just comes down to a simple premise. You don't pay to receive letters or e-mails, so there's no reason you should pay for receiving text messages--it just doesn't make sense. What's more, you can't opt out of receiving a text message so you still pay whether you read the message or not. I receive a lot of e-mails from wireless users that receive spam text messages. They think it's outrageous that they should have to pay to receive junk messages, and I agree with them. And though they can always get a refund by complaining to their carrier, they still have to initiate that process with no guarantee they'll be successful.

Yet it's more troubling that carriers don't have a clear, definitive policy as to when customers can cancel a contract due to increased fees. As I wrote in the November 6, 2007 edition of On Call, T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T will allow you to leave your contract if they raise your rates (among other things), but any changes must have a "material adverse" affect on you. Nowhere in their contracts do the carriers state exactly what constitutes a material adverse effect, or who gets to make that decision. And from what I've heard from readers, it all depends on which customer service rep you complain to.

I'd certainly argue that increasing text messaging rates by 100 percent increase in just 13 months certainly constitutes a "material" change and, depending on the customer, it could have an "adverse" effect as well. Even if it's just a few dollars per year, should it really be the carrier's responsibility to make that decision? That doesn't seem fair either. Customers should be the ones to decide when they're adversely affected, and they should be able to jump ship anytime a carrier raises rates.

TalkBack

Have you escaped your contract? Talk back to me below.

Post your comment here

Yes, I get the whole argument that "early termination fees are a means of holding customers to the 'bargain' they made with their carrier," but carriers need to give us a little room somewhere. After all, we can ditch our cable or landline services if our provider raises rates, so why shouldn't we be able to do the same with our cell phone carrier?