This story appeared
on Network World at
http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2012/051412-bradner.html
SMS a killer app at 20; irrelevant at 25?
'Net Insider By
Scott Bradner, Network World
May 14, 2012 02:33 PM ET
The first SMS-capable mobile phones
were approved for sale in Europe 20 years ago this month. By any measure, SMS
has become a huge success, at least for the telephone companies, with more than
6 trillion SMS messages sent worldwide in 2010, generating more than $110
billion in revenue. But the future may not be anywhere near as bright because
of increasing use of "free" Internet-based services such as Facebook, Apple's
iMessage and WhatsApp.com.
SMS is a great deal for telephone
companies. It costs almost nothing to transport an SMS message, yet the global average
price for a message is 11 cents. Verizon
lists its price as 40 cents (20 cents for you to send a message and 20
cents for your friend to receive the same message). And this is essentially
pure profit. A great deal for the telephone carriers and an example of the lack
of real competition, since real competition would drive the price of a service
that costs almost nothing to provide very low indeed.
It is not quite as exploitive as it
might appear since 60% or so of U.S. wireless customers
now have flat rate, and frequently unlimited, SMS packages as part of their
wireless contracts rather than paying per message. Some carriers, such as
Verizon, have been limiting their low-cost and limited SMS service offerings,
thus raising
the basic revenue they can expect from the average customer.
But the relentless march of technology
is beginning to impact this stream of money. More and more smartphone
owners are using social media sites such as Facebook
to communicate with their friends instead of SMS. Some are doing so to save
money since there is no per-message charge for updating your Facebook page. But most are likely making the switch
because they already use Facebook as their primary
way to let their friends know what is going on.
There is a new class of application
directed at people who actually do want to save money. WhatsApp and, separately, Apple's iMessage are examples. They also demonstrate the
advantages and limitations of this approach. The biggest advantage is that they
ride on top of the smartphone Internet data service
and are not charged on a per-message basis. The biggest limitation is that the
vendors have not yet adopted a common standard, so you can only send messages
to people who have the same application.
It is fundamentally irrational to have
a per-message charge for an Internet-based service -- very advantageous for a
carrier that could get away with it, but technically irrational in a network
such as the Internet where the incremental cost of an additional packet is
infinitesimally small.
This irrationality is already catching
up to some telephone carriers. For example, Swisscom's
SMS revenue dropped
28% in the first quarter of 2012 because of users switching to
Internet-based messaging services in order to save money.
The use of flat-rate unlimited SMS
plans are likely to delay the inevitable for a while but, even with such plans, why spend $240 per year (for Verizon) to use a
function that is enabled for no extra cost by your basic data plan and will
never generate enough traffic to kick you into a higher data bracket? SMS fees
will soon be just another tax on the clueless and the telephone company's only
hope is that the clueless don't talk to the cluefull.
Disclaimer:
Harvard likes to think that it is a place where the cluefull
talk with the cluefull. If that is true, then the
above would not apply, thus please assume that the above exploration into
telephone company irrationality is my own.
All contents
copyright 1995-2012 Network World, Inc. http://www.networkworld.com