• On TV.com: BATTLESTAR Galactica Maxim Photoshoot
June 16, 2009 2:24 PM PDT

AT&T and Verizon deny price-fixing accusations

by Marguerite Reardon

Executives from the nation's largest phone companies went to Capitol Hill Tuesday to defend themselves against allegations that they've been fixing prices on text messaging.

Executives from AT&T and Verizon Communications testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, saying their companies have not been involved in a conspiracy to hike text messaging rates. And they argued that competition is alive and well in the wireless market.

The hearing was called in response to a letter sent in September from Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) to the four major U.S. operators--Verizon, AT&T, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA--asking them to explain why their text rates had all increased to 20 cents per message. Kohl noted in his letter that these rates marked a 100 percent increase since 2005.

Shortly after the letter was sent, about 37 separate class action lawsuits were filed against wireless operators alleging price-fixing on text-messaging services.

Both AT&T and Verizon have denied these claims. And the companies came to Capitol Hill to clear their names.

"Especially in light of this litigation firestorm, we want to make it perfectly clear that AT&T sets the prices for all of its products on a unilateral basis," said Wayne Watts, general counsel for AT&T, in his written testimony. "There is no evidence to support an accusation that anyone at AT&T engaged in any inappropriate, much less illegal, behavior as alleged in these lawsuits."

Watts also noted that none of the lawsuits name a time, place, or person involved in the collusion, and all but one of the suits filed cite Kohl's letter as the basis for its allegations.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuits point to the fact that all four major U.S. carriers now charge customers 20 cents to send and receive a text message if they don't have a monthly texting plan. In his September letter, Kohl pointed to the 20 cent per text price tag and asked if this price hike really justified the cost of the service.

In his letter, Kohl also suggested that the wireless industry is not competitive enough. He noted that the four carriers combined currently serve more than 90 percent of wireless subscribers in the U.S.

AT&T and Verizon executives dispute that they have colluded to fix prices on texts, but they also deny that texting rates have increased. Instead, they claim that prices have fallen for text messaging as a result of robust competition.

Verizon's general counsel, Randal Milch, said in his written testimony that there are more differences in text-messaging prices among wireless competitors than there are similarities. And he noted that most Verizon Wireless customers subscribe to a texting plan, and as a result they "pay less than a penny per message," a reduction of almost two-thirds since 2006.

"As the result of the price cuts, usage has grown six-fold," he said.

Milch also called claims that the wireless companies were improperly setting rates "absolutely false." And he said that "market evidence shows fierce competition, not collusion, in text messaging and wireless generally."

The CTIA, the trade association representing wireless carriers, also said that competition in the wireless market is thriving.

"The U.S. wireless industry is the most competitive and innovative in the world. Third-party organizations and influentials--from Consumer Reports Magazine to former Vice President Al Gore--have echoed this statement," Steve Largent, head of the CTIA, said in statement.

Despite these claims, Kohl said he is still concerned about the state of competition in the wireless market, according to a report from the Dow Jones Newswire. Specifically, he pointed out exclusivity deals for popular cell phones, such as the Apple iPhone or the Palm Pre, that limit some consumers' ability to have access to those devices.

Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie.
advertisement
 
Business supplies and services can get expensive. Get smart spending tips and learn about new cost-saving opportunities for your business
Recent posts from Wireless
Initial Motorola Droid sales look good
Sprint to cut 2,000 to 2,500 jobs
Report: Clearwire gets more cash from investors
Nokia recalls 14 million chargers
New Verizon ad calls iPhone 'misfit toy'
Apple said to be working on 'world mode' iPhone
Is Verizon's new early-termination fee anti-consumer?
Sesame Street, Droid get Google's love
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (37 Comments)
by L33tLuXX0rz June 16, 2009 3:17 PM PDT
I do agree on the final statement about the exclusivity of phones forces you to choose a carrier just for one phone. And I think txt msg costs are a bit too high. There are numerous reports that say it costs them minimal amounts to even "send" a txt msg through the system.
Reply to this comment
by freemarket--2008 June 17, 2009 5:38 AM PDT
Like it's a real hardship to not have an iPhone or a Pre. Waaaagh! Let's pass a law to protect us from stubbing our toe next.
by MadLyb June 17, 2009 9:02 AM PDT
I think product exclusivity is a normal component of competition across many industries.

Now, while I rarely use text messaging, I think the cost is ludicrous and the fact that the cost doubled for those of us that do not adopt a plan is damning proof that they are milking the system for every penny (no pun intended) they can.

The other area that the wireless providers are ripping users off is roaming fees. While most of us never see them because the national networks, when you do run into them, they are insane and can be as much as 400% higher than regular rates.
by BogusBasin June 16, 2009 3:17 PM PDT
I f&@^ing hate AT&T. I pay for unlimited data. Then I pay again for text messaging. And that doesn't include multimedia messaging or picture messaging. These companies are really getting greedy. I complain, but I find using the iPhone to be worth the expense and frustration with ATT. But as soon as I have an option, I will jump ship.
Reply to this comment
by ivorycruncher June 16, 2009 3:34 PM PDT
I personally find little to no point in text messaging at all, so this isn't generally something I worry about. I send one or two texts per month, if that, and equally as rarely receive texts from anyone. If somebody decides to start spamming me, I'll just call up my carrier and have them remove that feature from my phone, because I can easily live without it.

That said, I can somewhat understand the reasoning for the non-plan rate increases. From a billing perspecitive, there's probably a lot more overhead for billing somebody who gets charged individually for each text than there is for somebody who gets charged one flat rate for all texts. Therefore, they're hiking the individual rate to get you to pay for a flat rate plan, thus simplifying their lives, and yours as well.

I think overall, the people affected by this arrangement are going to be few and far between. If you're like me, you seldom ever text, so twenty cents a pop is definitely not going to break the bank. On the other hand, if you text enough to where the dollars really start adding up, then you should be subscribing to a texting plan anyway, which will definitely save you money.
Reply to this comment
by freemarket--2008 June 17, 2009 5:40 AM PDT
Unfortunately, some carriers will not remove the text messaging 'feature' so you get to pay for the spam whether you want to or not.
by 1094WD June 18, 2009 6:35 PM PDT
One of the problems with buying a text messaging plan is that the cost of them has gone up too. I remember the days before at&t had bought out my provider, Unicel, when unlimited text messaging was $8 a month. If you didn't have an unlimited plan, incoming text messages were free. Same with picture messages. With at&t its $20 a month. Verizon doesn't even have unlimited!
by Woopee123 June 16, 2009 3:35 PM PDT
it costs these companies less to send these texts than to send the phone calls.
Reply to this comment
by 8301 June 16, 2009 7:31 PM PDT
I would say that when it would be cheaper for me to call someone and read out the zeroes and ones of which my text message is composed rather than send the actual message, then yeah, it's a bit overpriced.
by Eddie-c June 16, 2009 3:47 PM PDT
The cost is not justifiable if one does not have a plan considering (a) the cost to the carrier is miniscule and (b) SMS is not a guaranteed delivery medium.

Ivory: The (older) culture in the US tends not to be SMS-oriented while the younger does. In Europe they are much heavier users and, in APAC, SMS seems to be the de facto where people will ignore calls and e-mail yet they'll respond to a text.

In their defense, some subscribers have started/are taking texting to an extreme with recent net & news articles about people doing 200-500 per day(!)
Reply to this comment
by AndrewRich June 16, 2009 4:17 PM PDT
BS. Pure telco BS. Gee, they all have the exact same outrageous per-text price, but they have had no communication about setting those prices?

Next you'll tell me the airlines and oil companies don't price-fix either, right?
Reply to this comment
by AndrésB June 16, 2009 4:20 PM PDT
I'm Costa Rican. Since year 2000, to send a SMS here costs only $0.0026 (yes), while to receive is free. No increase since then. I guess that "competition" not always benefits customers.
Reply to this comment
by moav June 16, 2009 4:29 PM PDT
i think the prices are way to low in my opinion. Mr. Kohl why don't you try to make your own phone company from scratch it's not that easy to do. It would take Trillions of dollars to create something the size and strength of these companies. I myself to not want to do this and i don't have the time. So, if they charge $1.00 or $100 per text message that is fine because it would cost me well beyond that figure if i were to go on my own and try to build a phone, create a network and hire individuals that could fix the minute by minute problems that can plague these networks. What you need to look into is the price fixing of lawyers, brokers and doctors for ripping off the American public for the past 50 years. Most of them should be locked away behind bars are shot in the head, i will be the first to pull the trigger, just line them up and i'll take care of the problems of the American public for the past 50 years.
Reply to this comment
by 8301 June 16, 2009 7:20 PM PDT
They have this thing now called a "return on investment" where large initial costs are subsidized over a finite period of time by a slight increase in price.
by tech_crazy June 16, 2009 11:43 PM PDT
Your comments leave no room for doubt that you work for one of the Telcos.

1) To begin with, SMS uses bandwidth that voice calls cannot use and hence gone waste. Doesn't cost the telcos practically anything
2) Everywhere in the world, SMS rates are falling. In many countries in Asia and Europe, the rates to send are typically about 1c/msg and free to receive. Contrast that with US rates.
3) My SMS rate (without a monthly text plan) has gone up from 5c/msg in 2004 to 20c/msg in 2008. Ditto for other carriers. 400% increase in 4 years, this is outrageous and doubly so when costs keep coming down!

They are in collusion with one another, either directly or indirectly and deserve to be whacked. I eagerly await what eventually happens to the class action lawsuits.
by tech_crazy June 16, 2009 11:47 PM PDT
Your comments leave no room for doubt that you work for one of the Telcos.

1) To begin with, SMS uses bandwidth that voice calls cannot use and hence gone waste. Doesn't cost the telcos practically anything
2) Everywhere in the world, SMS rates are falling. In many countries in Asia and Europe, the rates to send are typically about 1c/msg and free to receive. Contrast that with US rates.
3) My SMS rate (without a monthly text plan) has gone up from 5c/msg in 2004 to 20c/msg in 2008. Ditto for other carriers. 400% increase in 4 years, this is outrageous and doubly so when costs keep coming down!

They are in collusion with one another, either directly or indirectly and deserve to be whacked. I eagerly await what eventually happens to the class action lawsuits.

And as for the price fixing in other professions that you talk of, I can say from personal family experience that doctors aren't among them. The payment that they get from the insurance providers and Medicare for the exact same service has gone down over the years while our health insurance premiums have continued rising. Any normal person can understand that the insurance companies are pocketing the difference and ever greedy about it.
So before you make any outrageous comments, grow a brain.
by aka_tripleB June 17, 2009 8:56 AM PDT
The prices are for from too low for text messaging. Messaging was added to phone capability because the network that was already built could handle it. The carriers didn't have to didn't have to rebuild it so that you could send, "OMG I just saw Brad Pitt!" And messaging is an opt-out system, so you have to tell carriers that you don't want to receive messages because you're tired of being a victom twice when someone breaks the law and sends you unsolicited messages.
by kudos2uguys June 16, 2009 4:39 PM PDT
If people knew what it really costs either AT&T or Verizon to send text messages or video messages or pictures messages, they would pass out. Well I will tell you, because I know and that is PENNIES! Literally two cents, five for a very large file, yet you know what your paying out there! Both companies are making 2000 to 3000% above cost on the service. They are making a fortune on people who either do have a texting plan or even more on those who don't. You don't want to know what the bottom line cost of placing a call and what the percent of return is on that either!
Reply to this comment
by Craig_2009 June 16, 2009 6:36 PM PDT
It takes much less network bandwidth to transmit a text message than speech. Because of this, in some countries the lowest cost phone plans are text only. In the US the phone companies have succeeded in getting customers to consider text to be an extra cost addon, and are getting away with totally ridiculous pricing. I don't mind paying a fair price for services, but 20 cents per message is a total ripoff relative to the cost of providing the service (after the basic voice network is already in place). Maybe it's not price fixing, but apparently great minds think alike. There is not real competition due to consumer apathy about this issue (until recently, at least).
Reply to this comment
by humanssssss June 16, 2009 6:41 PM PDT
Charging to send txt msg prevents spam. It's not the cost of sending a txt msg, it's the pricing to prevent spam.

When txting becomes free, there's going to be free reign on txting and people will pay to block unwanted txt.

You can't have it both ways folks!
Reply to this comment
by 8301 June 16, 2009 7:30 PM PDT
And I'm sure the telecoms would drop the price of text messages in a second if only it weren't for those darned old spammers. They probably just throw the money away, since it's only used as a deterrent.
by texaslabrat June 16, 2009 8:00 PM PDT
@humansssss

LOL..do you really believe that? You do realize that it's trivial to send spam *FOR FREE* to SMS customers via the email gateways, right? Next theory!
by edtechlab June 16, 2009 7:48 PM PDT
How does cricket charge only $30!
Reply to this comment
by ydoineedausername June 16, 2009 8:53 PM PDT
>>AT&T and Verizon executives dispute that they have colluded to fix prices on texts, but they also deny that texting rates have increased. Instead, they claim that prices have fallen for text messaging as a result of robust competition.<<

Sounds like they share their math skills with our politicians. I remember paying $.02 a msg when I first subscribed, now it's $.20? That's a pretty large increase if you ask me.

Either way, the government needs to keep their noses out of business. People can chose not to use the service. This is the biggest reason I don't use the service and I've blocked messaging on 2 of my 3 lines, because of the extra charges or inability to unblock a select few sources. I was tired of paying for spam or wrong numbers. At $.02, I could let it slide.
Reply to this comment
by kingtrae79 June 16, 2009 10:33 PM PDT
"The U.S. wireless industry is the most competitive and innovative in the world"
--yeah if we were living on mars. obviously no one from the CTIA has ever been to japan or europe for that matter. Text messages are sent on the same carrier signal that your cell phone HAS to send out just to stay on the network and triangulate your location. it costs them nearly nothing, definately not more than it costs to provide Plain old wireless service, and definately not some 20 cents a text!! all of the overhead probably comes from billing services, not from the service itself. I put this in the same boat as cable operators who triple charge people for Television, internet, and phone. there's one line coming into the house-- not three. they are simply taking advantage of their position to offer services that once had to be offered by seperate providers. Imagine if the water company charged for how you used the water, 30 bucks per unit to cook,40 to drink, and 20 to clean, oh yeah and 60 bucks per unit to carry the sewage away. Predatory companies such as these are sucking our economy dry, and I for one am waiting for the day when someone starts a combined wireless/ fiber based network that offers people bandwidth without differentiating between how you use it. mp3's taking over the music delivery system is a function of bandwith, crappy frequency response of telephony is a function of bandwith, crappy picture on digital television SD is a function of bandwith (CSPAN looks like ass in digital!). there is a difference between differentiating your product in order to compete and bleeding the consumer by making false differentiations in a monolithic product line.
Reply to this comment
by Kyanar June 17, 2009 9:02 PM PDT
Actually, there is additional hardware required for text messaging. SMSCs, storage, and yes the billing infrastructure. None of these are free or even cheap - hardly the "nearly nothing" you describe. Still, 0.20c is excessive, especially when considering that text prices across the world seem to always be 0.20, regardless of exchange rate (for example, 0.20 NZD, 0.20 AUD, 0.20 USD, 0.20 GBP etc) which makes exactly no sense.
by jofssie June 17, 2009 3:11 AM PDT
This is definitely collusion on their part. @moav, that is a really bad argument you've got there. I also think you work for a telco.
Just to prove you wrong, though: I just signed up for a prepaid plan from Tracfone, called StraightTalk. Now this plan gives me 1000 minutes of talk, 1000 texts and 30mb of data for $30. You could break it down to 2c per minute talk, 1c per text and free data if you like. But they're NOT charging what the telcos mentioned above are charging, so you argument falls flat. You don't have to overcharge like that. Especially not if your network is already mostly built and it's costing you less than a penny to actually send a text.
Reply to this comment
by saintseminole June 17, 2009 7:47 AM PDT
Easy answer: don't text.

When asking people around me, what's the point of texting, when there's already email, cell phones, etc., they usually respond: "There are some situations when you can't use the phone, like in school, or in theaters."

Seriously? Should anyone be texting during school? Or in a movie theater?

If keeping in minute-to-minute touch with someone is that important to you, don't go in movie theaters. In school, I thought cell phones were required to be turned off.

Again, easy answer: don't text.
Reply to this comment
by aka_tripleB June 17, 2009 8:42 AM PDT
I wouldn't come anywhere close to paying a penny per message if I was on an idividual plan. Depending how many messages you want to send to people outside of Verizon's network, you would have to send 1000, 1500, or 2000 messages on its $10, $15, or $20 messaging plans. The last time I looked, I send about 100 messages. That would be $0.10, $0.15, or $0.20 per message, a whooping 10-20 times the price Verizon is quoting congress.
Reply to this comment
by rrod182 June 17, 2009 8:59 AM PDT
You realize that at $0.10 per message you are paying roughly $655 per MB?
by brynn08 June 17, 2009 12:36 PM PDT
screw ATT and Verizon.....they both expensive...ill never pay outrageous plans for good service for VZW....but ppl are too naive bcuz there hypnotized by 'the network' VZW is a crooked company anyways.....and ATT just flat out sucks....coverage sucks....prices garbage......but again if ppl are too naive to go to these companies.....there naive in general......ill stay on my "simply everything" which includes all those features at no extra cost !
Reply to this comment
by sam99999999 June 17, 2009 1:50 PM PDT
These statements by the "competing" carriers are such rampant BS it's unbelievable.

20 cents to send 160 bytes in this day and age is unadulterated monopolistic pricing. Actual marginal costs to send an SMS are *well below* 1 cent.

The fact that the carriers can get away with this pricing (which is used to force people onto monthly texting plans) is an abomination, and it evidences a complete lack of oversight by the various state PUCs and "our" representatives in Congress.
Reply to this comment
by gladman9 June 17, 2009 8:14 PM PDT
i think everyone is getting a little fed up with text messages being so expensive. I use http://www.smstextnow.com to send text messages for free. I also can set it up to send to groups which is handy for work, group meetings and for sports teams. this way I don't have to worry about the cost of sending these messages and it's much easier to manage. I will continue to use sites such as this until the pricing gets back in line with what's fair.
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 2 pages (37 Comments)
advertisement

After 5 years, Firefox faces new challenges

Mozilla helped reshape the Web since releasing Firefox 1.0 five years ago. Now it's got a reawakened Microsoft and Google Chrome to reckon with.

There's a map for that: GPS or smartphone?

Almost every handset comes with mapping software these days, but standalone GPS devices are becoming more affordable than ever.

About Wireless

Check out the latest wireless news on CNET News, featuring the latest news on cell phones, mobile gear, VOIP, and internet access via broadband and wireless connections.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Wireless topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right