Collusion would be the best explanation in a void of facts. Here I think I can be of assistance.
I am a telecommunications engineer. I am reading this article because it relates to my industry, not because of any belief that these data thieves have done anything remotely interesting. Given that it may be "on topic" to assume this could affect SMS pricing, it seems then "on topic" to relate why it cannot.
Here are the Big Secrets:
Except for one hour a day, SMSs don't cost anything.
Except for one hour a day, Voice calls don't cost anything.
There. It's out. The servers that process these things on average draw 4.0 amps per 2U at idle and 4.5 amps per 2U at busy. That's the total power savings ratio going from peak-hour to 4 a.m.
Since the equipment is already sitting there and the bandwidth is already leased and a large carrier rarely has to use another carrier's network for Long Distance transport. The fix costs burn whether you are yammering away on your phone or not.
Where adding customers to the network costs money is when those customers make a call during the busy hour. A "blocked call rate" is the % of people who get a network-busy signal or some sort of error when they try to make a call while the system is already at full capacity. Large carriers try to keep this number below 1%.
So where you cost them money in added infrastructure is when you make calls that contribute to busy hour traffic. The rest of the time the cost of your calls rounds comfortably down to zero.
Since the cost of support in a given month is 90% sunk whether you have zero calls or spend the whole month busy, your marketing department is given a large dollar figure they have to get from the subscribers so you can stay in the black.
The question then is "How to bill for it?" Enter game theory.
If you announced to the world what your busy hour is (say 9 a.m.), and that you were only charging for calls during that time, naturally no one would call during that time. You could then announce the new busy hour (now 10 a.m.), and then people would avoid that.... I'm sure you see where this is going. As a carrier with a growing subscriber base you'd still have to be adding cell-sites for the constantly roving busy hour and people on your network would constantly have to update their calling habits to dodge it.
So they pick large chunk of the day where the business users can't really avoid making calls and they divide cost of busy hour infrastructure across those hours. It's not all that tricky. The rest of the day is given away free or near free as the marketing gimmick enthusiasts see fit.
Slightly trickier, is the math to relate people's usage to the probability that they will cost you money in infrastructure upgrades. It's convoluted, but there isn't even any calculus involved. I've seen the spreadsheets where this is done. They generally just tweak a number here and a number there and hit F9 until they see the numbers they like.
The same issues apply to SMS. If you announced that "on your network all SMSs are free" you'd get people switching over just because of that (more money == good), but then they'd be SMS enthusiasts who would shortly saturate your SS7 infrastructure with messages. That equipment is very expensive. You can argue that it shouldn't be and what a great value it would be to create a nationwide wireless topology consisting entirely of WRT54Gs, but in the real world, the only people buying SS7 gear are large carriers, and the people selling it know that and charge much like they would charge the government.
So you want to know the ratio of the costs for SMS infrastructure vs voice? We can look at T-Mobile's "Individual Plan" page for some good clues. Going from their "basic plan" at $30 a month, to unlimited voice ($100) is a $70 difference, adding unlimited SMS to most plans is an extra $15 a month. So the jump from the voice "they'd expect you to use" is about 4.7 times as expensive as the extra SMS gear they'd have to buy if they give you unlimited SMS. Having seen the prices on this gear, that doesn't seem out of line. Nor does it surprise me that one carrier will allow SMS costs to inch toward the Red until one of the others gives in and raises their prices first. It's no more collusive gas stations that watch their competitors across the street and make sure they are within 5 cents (or whatever amount they've determined it takes to make people change stations).
I don't mean to get all Oprah on people that are complaining about SMS prices, but if they gave up two hours a month of their World of WarCraft time, and put in an extra two hours a month working at the Gas N' Sip, they'd be able to buy unlimited SMS, and we could end this tired meme once and for all...
