In the US, that still counts against your limits.

But I doubt this would decrease conversion rate at all.

I would -suspect- that US users are already desensitised to that and have suitable limits set up, and I'm not aware of anywhere else that happens.

So I would also be doubtful that it's a problem.

Canada too, and it is an issue. Most people don't have suitable limits set up, nor are they desensitized to it. They just do what they can to avoid unsolicited texts. Not to mention SMS-as-authentication blows for a number of other reasons, not the least of which is you have to be connected to a cell network to receive them. Not WiFi, but the actual cell network.

You have a deactivated phone or phone out of the network you would like to use to authenticate? Too bad, not only do you need a phone that can receive an SMS, you also need an active phone plan.

Unfortunately the only way to do this well is to cover all your bases. A great example is Blizzard, who offers an authenticator app for your phone, an SMS program for those who don't have smartphones, and a custom built authenticator device for everyone else.

It's expensive, but anything less will cut out a large portion of potential users. Hence why we still just use a username and password. Much like democracy is to politics, user/pass is the worst form of authentication except for all the others.

right i did not know that, thanks for clearing that up.

Carriers typically charge rates for both sending and receiving text messages.

I think that might just be in the USA, or at least we don't have this in the UK. It seems to me quite cheeky to charge the recipient also; you wouldn't charge someone to receive a letter.

Especially since you have no means to refuse the delivery of a text message other than telling your operator to stop delivering messages for you entirely. I have never really understood the rationale behind the US model of charging for received texts.

> I have never really understood the rationale behind the US model of charging for received texts.

Vendor charges customer because they can and customer is powerless. What about that don't you understand?

More seriously - I think it traces back to the fact that in the US you pay airtime for both incoming and outgoing calls, including "free" (1-800) numbers; The reason for this was that originally:

a) mobile calls were really expensive b) there were no number range or pattern allocated for mobile phone numbers (thus, when you call a number, you generally don't know if it is landline, mobile, virtual or which operator it is (or ever was)).

So caller-to-mobile pays the same (they don't know they are calling mobile), and recipient-on-mobile pays the rest. And since everyone was used to that, the operators extended that to text as well.

Yes, this is in the USA. And yes, it is quite cheeky. It is exactly like charging someone to receive a letter, whether they want it or not, and do so based entirely on the fact that it made it to their mailbox. It's ridiculous.

The U.S. mobile market really needs a shake-up if you've got to pay for what you receive even if you haven't asked for it.

Yes, it really rubs salt in the wound when you get a spam text and then realize that cost me money.

Indeed it does. My understanding of the standing of mobile carriers in the legal system leaves me to think this shake-up is not so easily accomplished. From texting to tethering, we're charged to use every feature our phones include if the carriers can delimit some kind of usage of it (even though the actual usage is not different from, say, merely using our data plans).

UK/France/Spain and most european countries have got good deals. Under 40$ a month for all unlimited, and many MVNO offer 4 cent/minute or text and a fixed ~20cent per call rate, pay as you go (data is very cheap, too). Inbound texts or calls are of course free (except when abroad).

Roaming is currently around 9ct/mb in the european union if you manage to get the right deal, or by law 80ct/mb which isn't _that_ good.