Free SMS On IPhone 3G Via AOL IM Client

Glenn Fleishman writes "Jeff Carlson has discovered that you can bypass the 20 cent per message or $5 to $20 per month fees for SMS (text messaging) with the iPhone 3G and AT&T by using AOL's downloadable instant message client for iPhone 2.0, which is free. Just like the full-blown AOL IM system, you can add buddies that are the phone numbers of cell phones you want to send SMS to, and you establish a two-way conduit. The recipient still pays for SMS (if they have a fee) on their end, but if it's another iPhone user, you could coordinate with them via SMS to use instant messaging instead."

Oh lord

Someone figures out to chat instead of text and it makes front page...

Re:Oh lord

But its "on the iPhone!!!!". Just wait till they start patenting those things as novelties because you can do them "on the iPhone!!!". It worked for a slew of obvious so called "on the internet" inventions.

Re:Oh lord

As long as it's about the bloody iphone, it makes the front page. Who the fuck are these idiots who vote up every crap story in the firehose as long as it's about fucking Apple? This can't be interesting, not even to the die-hard Apple fanatic, and it's certainly not something specific to the iPhone. It's weak advertising for a feature you may find in any other phone.

Enough with the iphone stories, already. I fucking hate the device now, and only because of the incessant spamming.

Re:Oh lord

Yeah, you know what else I hate because I see stories about it everyday on Slashdot? Linux!

I mean, Jesus H Christ, enough already!

Re:Oh lord

I agree. And not just Slashdot - I was walking in London yesterday to see "news" about 3G ... on the Iphone! - plastered over all the news billboards. Is there really nothing more happening in the world then a years-old feature being added to one particular phone?

God, I guess when they finally add basic UI requirements like copy/paste, it'll be first story on the Nine O' Clock News.

I wish Apple would stop spamming me via email too, come to that.

You're missing the point

I think the point is that telco's are gouging people for text traffic, which has a very small impact on their infrastructure. If you compare the network traffic for text vs. picture vs. video, they are ripping people off. I even get messages sometimes from the telco, which means they are getting free money everytime they send a promotion to every cell phone. Say 1 million cell phones are sent one $0.25 message that's 1/4 million dollars for each message sent with very little impact on their infrastructure. What am I going to do? Spend an hour asking them to refund a quarter?

Re:You're missing the point

Considering the cost of SMS, keep in mind there's much more to SMS than just transporting the bytes of text. One of the things you're overlooking is the store/forward nature of SMS (for reliable delivery), as well as the per-message transactional overhead.

With a voice call, most of the work is in setting up the connection to the person you're calling. Once that connection is established, essentially you're streaming 8K per second of data (64 kilobits / sec). None of that data gets stored anywhere for later retransmission -- the network really needs to do nothing beyond act as a pipe.

With SMS, your message gets stored in a queue so that it can be sent to your recipient if they're not available. This message queue needs to be able to handle many thousands of transactions per second -- if done incorrectly, this can cause a significant bottleneck. You might not notice if 160 bytes worth of voice data get scrambled, but a missed SMS message might cause you significant problems. If your phone is turned off, you miss your calls -- maybe you'll get a voicemail. With SMS, you'll get your message when you turn the phone back on.

The per-message transactional overhead can be quite substantial. The carrier has to generate billing events for sending / receiving messages. They may need to query or debit a prepaid system. They may have per-subscriber whitelist / blacklist rules which need to be applied to every message. All of these systems cost money to purchase and maintain. These also apply to voice calls, but in that case, those costs are covered either by your flat-rate local service charge, or by your per-minute long distance charges.

One other thing is that delivering SMS messages does actually cause quite an engineering problem for cell providers. SMS messages are typically delivered via the overhead control channel, which is the same channel used to do call setup/teardown, handoffs between cell sites, and other tasks. The overhead control channel is typically limited in capacity, and many carriers have engineered enough capacity for regular call activity. SMS has exploded in growth over the past few years, to the point that it is exhausting this overhead control channel for some carriers. Carriers have to spend considerable effort to reengineer their networks, so that they are able to keep up with both SMS traffic as well as regular call handling traffic.

The bottom line is that SMS is not a data transport -- SMS is a communication medium, an alternative to a voice call or email. People often send an SMS when a voice call would be inappropriate -- for example, in church, in class, at dinner, etc. The value of SMS isn't in the transport of the bits/bytes, but in conveying a message without having to talk, and without needing to be next to a computer. As for comparing it to a data transport, nobody sends files via SMS. It would be far too slow and expensive.

I agree that 10 cents / message is a little steep, but then, I've paid for a bundle to control costs. Most carriers offer unlimited SMS plans for reasonable prices, or smaller bundles at lower rates. Even though carriers are making money hand over fist for SMS, usage continues to grow exponentially. Even if you consider it a ripoff, there are millions of active SMS users who don't. If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it. :)

Re:You're missing the point

I think if you went to the average person who uses text messaging heavily, they would say they're paying for the ability to send text messages to their friends when they can't make a phone call. They don't really care how it works or how the network is (mis)engineered. -- they just care that it does. If they're happy paying $.10 per message (or $10.00 / month for unlimited), then they'll subscribe to SMS and the telco will be happy to take their money.

As for being badly engineered, nobody expected SMS volume to grow like it has. SMS was originally expected to be a way to send programming updates to handsets via "spare" bandwidth on the network. While it was also possible to send regular text messages via SMS, it really didn't get much attention until just a few years ago. Once people discovered SMS, the usage took off beyond the wildest dreams of the carriers (both in terms of profit and also impact). It's difficult to keep engineering for 30 - 50% per year growth in volume without spending a lot of money in hardware / network upgrades.

As for a better protocol that may one day deprecate SMS -- I guarantee that carriers are looking for one that scales better, without impacting battery life (you probably can't keep the phone continuously connected to an IM server via the data network, or you'll drain the battery in an hour). That's a solvable problem though, once the carriers and handset manufacturers can all agree on the solution. I expect the end result it will look something like a cross between SMS and IM.

Don't expect that to happen quickly, as people will need new handsets for that to work -- and most people don't upgrade phones that often. Even when it does, as long as the carriers control the network or the devices that communicate with it, they'll find a way to bill for you using it, in a way that maximizes their profit.

The bottom line is this -- carriers are looking for ways to bill you as much as possible without you complaining or dropping service. Services and add-on features are the means by which they justify this billing. They're not holding a gun to your head though -- if you don't want the service, have them remove it from your account, or don't use it. But with SMS, lots of people use it happily, and some quite heavily. They wouldn't be doing so if they truly felt it was a ripoff.

Re:You're missing the point

I don't tell the gas station how much to charge me for pop, chips, etc. They charge what the market will bear. I don't tell Hollister what to charge me for shorts/shirts, they charge what the market will bear. How is this any different? If you don't like what they charge for text messaging, DON'T USE IT (or switch providers).

I agree. They could even start using a text chat client instead of SMS. I know, perhaps they could even post that idea to popular websites to get people doing it.

Re:Oh lord

I figured this out on my LG CU500. Except that the AIM client still goes through SMS. Guess who went over their SMS limit by $30 that month?

Re:Oh lord

My answer to all of your questions: kdawson. Well, okay, there have been others, but he's the current one. The reign of terror is dynastic.

Re:Oh lord

Just my .02USD

Actually, your 'two cents' post would cost you .60USD at standard SMS rates...

Re:Oh lord

a flat rate system like SMS just isn't going to cut it

Exactly the reason why they offer flat rate services. The more people have data-plans, the less it makes sense to charge for individual SMS'. In the end they will charge 5 bucks for unlimited SMS if you want it or not, because otherwise they would lose that source of revenue while data plans get cheaper and cheaper.

Btw: For the same reason the telcos of many countries refuse to sell you DSL without a telephone line. Voip could fill the void completely and it would be even possible to implement a free system on a global scale, but it would hurt those providing access to voip services and for that reason they won't let you use it exclusively (or at least let you pay for what they don't earn the traditional way). And if you are paying for it anyways there is less incentive to switch to free alternatives.

I love flat rates in general, but sometimes they are just designed to keep the status quo. In the end everything gets cheaper in regards to what we pay per minute, but the bill at the end of the month still is as high as 8 years ago.

Just look at how many households still have a fax machine and you will realize how much pricing is preventing a real step forward.

Jeff Carlson

Jeff Carlson is a freakin' genius! This is amazing! Oh wait, no, that other thing: mundane.

Ummm...

but if it's another iPhone user, you could coordinate with them via SMS to use instant messaging instead.

Or you could just....email them? They will have push email, and I assume if they have an iphone they have an email address, so why not just use that instead of creating these elaborate schemes....

Re:Ummm...

Or, instead of email, I hear these crazy little contraptions let you talk to one another just by talking. It's quite shock to some, but I think you can dial a "phone" number and say something like, "Put AIM on your phone so you don't have to use SMS for texting." when the other person picks up.

Re:Ummm...

I saw a person on some other website complaining about the lack of voice chat on the AIM client. The lack of voice chat... on a phone...

Re:Ummm...

I saw a person on some other website complaining about the lack of voice chat on the AIM client. The lack of voice chat... on a phone...

It does sound odd at first, but it makes sense. Consider that your talk time is metered and you are billed extra if you use too much -- but data is supposedly unlimited. AIM voice chat, or Skype, would minimize the number of paid minutes you have to use. Not that AT&T would like it, but there's good reason to want it as a bill-paying customer.

Re:Ummm...

I've worked with the iPhone SDK and 3rd-party apps cannot push to the UI unless they are selected and running.

So yes, email FTW. Because it's pushed to the UI. Unlike 3rd-party app messages.

Next.

Re:Ummm...

At WWDC, it was mentioned that there would be something called Universal Push Notification. Some explanation here [macworld.com]. It seems you will be able to push either badges (that will attach to your app's icon), custom alert sounds, or overlay text messages (I assume like MSN chat does), which will overlay any currently running app.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any reference to this on their developer web site, which miserably has no search functionality. Yes, that's right, I am also developing for the iPhone. What have I developed? Why, the iVibe. Exactly what it does is left to your imagination. No, it is not yet on the Apple store. Coming soon, for better or for worse.

Why hasn't a provider made SMS free yet?

It seems like in this semi-competitive market, one of the providers would've made the unusual move of switching to free SMS. I realize it's pure profit for them, but it seems like they could make up the difference with the influx of new customers, and potentially less voice bandwidth usage.

Paying when you receive?

Paying when you send a message, understandable. Paying when you receive a message, makes no fucking sense. If you call someone long distance, do they normally pay long distance fees? Of course not. You don't really have an option not to receive someone's message, and if you get spammed then you have to pay for it out of your own pocket. It's asinine.

This whole AIM over iPhone thing just goes to show how trivial it is to send/receive SMS anyway, and it really might as well be free in the scheme of things.

Re:Let me correctly rephrase the first sentence

"I mean, c'mon. It's common sense that AOL can send SMS. One idiot figures out a program and it makes the front news."

I, for one, had no idea that AIM could do that. Anyway, why would it be common sense? There are all sorts of totally incompatible protocols and formats that accomplish essentially the same task, and while it's cool that AOL apparently decided to code an intuitive workaround in this instance that isn't the general state of things. Of course, I use AIM very little 9and SMS even less), because I prefer to just call people, so perhaps I'm just out of the loop on this one.

That said, I agree that this is hardly worthy of the front page; it isn't even as funny as installing Skype on PDA with a wireless data plan and skipping, possibly I remember using AIM on a Nokia about 8 years ago with no trouble outside of only typing ~3 words per minute.

Re:Well now its gone.

It's not going anywhere as far as I know. I'm one of the developers of AIM for iPhone, and frankly we're glad that it's been discovered and slashdotted :)

Sending IMs to a mobile number is a feature of the AIM service, and there's no reason that we shouldn't have it for the iPhone. In fact, our data API (which is open sourced here [google.com]) doesn't distinguish between mobile numbers and buddies.

Re:Well now its gone.

Firstly... has the AIM team just thrown in the towel on AIM for Mac?

Second... I've found the iPhone client to be horribly glitchy when you close the app without signing off. If messages are sent to me while it's closed, I just get blank messages upon reopening the client.