Data From Hubble To Earth Cheaper Than Texting Your Friend

[Ed Hansberry]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.cellular-news.com/story/31095.php' target='_blank'>http://www.cellular-news.com/story/31095.php</a><br /><br /></div><em>&quot;A University of Leicester space scientist has worked out that sending texts via mobile phones works out to be far more expensive than downloading data from the Hubble Space Telescope. Dr Nigel Bannister's calculations were used for the UK's Channel 4 Dispatches programme &quot;The Mobile Phone Rip-Off&quot;. He worked out the cost of obtaining a megabyte of data from Hubble - and compared that with the 5p cost of sending a text. He said: &quot;The bottom line is texting is at least 4 times more expensive than transmitting data from Hubble, and is likely to be substantially more than that.&quot;</em><br /><br />I guess I've never really noticed the cost of texting too much because I've pretty much always had T-Mobile's unlimited texting plan. If you aren't on an unlimited plan though, it is a bit scary thinking it is cheaper to send data from space than it is to your neighbor across down.<br />

[Brad Adrian]

That could all be true, but I heard that every two years NASA gets a $100 upgrade allowance for a new telescope. ;)

[JvanEkris]

NASA has its own dedicated network costing billions, but also transporting propably gigabytes or even terrabytes per day, which it will do for some decades. This makes the costs per megabyte pretty low, just because of the sheer volume of data transported per day.

An SMS is small volume of data, where setup and billing costs, as well as maintenance cost of the hardware become significant per megabyte. Even when you take in account that a lot of people use the hardware simultanously, it will not compete with the price per megabyte when you use bulk transport of any kind.

I think it is a bit like comparing the cost of transporting a liter/gallon of fuel between a dedicated supertanker (i.e. a lot of volume making the costs per gallon pretty low) or using a courier (not much volume, making the cost per volume collosal)?

Jaap

[Prosper]

What do people pay for a text message in the US?

[Stinger]

I think people have got to remember that SMS was originally a dirty hack on top of GSM. It was never designed with mass market appeal in mind and is an incredible inefficient way of sending data.

I know the British government actually set a maximum price of SMS in the UK originally, based on it's cost - 4p for the outbound message, 3p for the delivery report and then 3p profit and 2p tax. A total of 12p.

Since then, the cost to networks for sending SMS has decreased insignificantly but they've never directly passed on that saving to the customer. It's been a massive cash cow of the UK carriers, where 2.1 billion SMS are sent a year.

It's not all bad news though. Most contracts come with a decent number of messages bundled and not many people pay the direct cost of 10-12p per message.

[Ed Hansberry]

What do people pay for a text message in the US?
If you have no plan, I think 5-10 cents is typical. I pay $9.99 per month on a family plan so 4 phones get unlimited texting.

For text messages sent out of North America, I've seen charges as high as 25 cents per message on my bill! :eek: Needless to say, I don't do that often. It is cheaper to send an email.

[Prosper]

If you have no plan, I think 5-10 cents is typical. I pay $9.99 per month on a family plan so 4 phones get unlimited texting.

That's still quite cheap. I have no plan (prepaid) and pay 9 euro cent (per 1 SMS to any carrier in Germany and per 1 minute to any carrier in Germany) - so that's about 14 dollar cent.
And that's the cheapest (no plan) version here in Germany. :D

[latinlover]

I'm also on the 9cent (EURO) plan in Germany, as long as people keep happily sending texts the carriers will keep reaming us.

...but this is not even as bad as the german GEZ
what about paying a TV fee for "being able" to see a channel tailored for retired seniors?

...beat that!

[johnthebaton]

Uh, no comparison here. NASA is a government-funded entity, Cellular is private. Cell companies had to pass on the cost of building its infrastructure to consumers. NASA gets a check from the government.
So you'd have to add the amount NASA receives from taxes into the equation for the Hubble project to make it a fair comparison.

Did this study account for the cost of designing, building, and sending Hubble into space? Does it cover the paychecks of the employees who constantly monitor Hubble? Does it include the entire cost of the space mission that repaired Hubble's telescope? Add all these factors, then it's a fair comparison. Granted, cell companies also gain revenue from their voice plans, but still I think we'd all be shocked at the real cost comparison if you include the infrastructure cost of the Hubble telescope.

[yslee]

I guess it's cheap(er) here then; slightly less than 4 US cents per message.