Slashdot Mirror


SMS Messaging Unreliable

Lovejoy writes "From a Reuters story: Keynote announced today that in its two-week, 26,000 message test-period 7.5% of its text messages never reached their destinations Ouch. I don't have SMS - Is this report consistent with your experience?"

48 of 544 comments (clear)

  1. Having worked in the WAP world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    that is actually a bit low. It's to see the failure rate has improved from 99/2000 when the rate was around double that or more.

  2. Works Here by dnaumov · · Score: 5, Informative

    Works here (in Finland) well enough. I'd say 99% of my messages reach their destination.

    1. Re:Works Here by daveirl · · Score: 5, Informative

      Works here perfectly. Here is Ireland. Maybe it just has problems in the US. With most phones you can turn on delivery reports so you get a message pending report and then when it is delivered to the other phone you get a message recieved report.

      I'd send about 10 messages a day and have been doing so for about 4 years now and have had a total of about 5 Message Failed reports.

    2. Re:Works Here by wdr1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Same here. I can confirm I've gotten every email I've received.

      -Bill

      --
      SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
  3. Sure, but you're told by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is true for the UK sure, but if it fails you get a message back - always.

    --
    D
    "CSLib Menace strikes back"

    1. Re:Sure, but you're told by awx · · Score: 5, Informative

      The handset gets a received receipt via the network when a) the message is waiting to be received by the other handset and b) the message is delivered successfully. If your handset doesn't get the first receipt back immediately, the network received receipt, it gives you an error. You can frob a bit on most Nokias to show you all this, it's really handy.

      --
      Feel that power? That's mah MOUSING FINGER
  4. This was sent from my phone... by psxndc · · Score: 4, Funny
    So if you're reading it, everything seems to be oC$%^#%^&&*^&*(#@

    psxndc

    --

    The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

  5. SMSC by PauloSousa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't know what kind of Short Messaging Service Center they have, but I live in portugal where all the telecoms have CMG SMSC's and I I have never seen 1 message lost!

    And i use a SMS chat system where I receive around 100 messages per day...

  6. Not my experience by mabster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Down here is Australia SMS is (in my experience) 100% reliable. The only times I've had trouble has been over busy periods like Christmas, when a message might take a few hours to get to the recipient, rather than a few seconds.

    I use SMS like I use email. In fact, it's nicer, since you don't have to wait for your friends/family to be at their PC (if they own one) and online.

  7. 'Bout time someone noticed this by FattyBoeBatty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the whole problem is with current business models of internet businesses -- with free services, the host really has no compelling reason to guarantee anything. It's a lot easier to just drop a message than to report and gracefully handle an error. Perhaps industry-wide slacking service (just like this) will soon lead to subscription-based messaging clients.

    -Ben S.

    test@gigglemail.com

    1. Re:'Bout time someone noticed this by version5 · · Score: 4, Informative

      How is $0.10 a message (with Cingular) a free service? My carrier charges for both sent and received messages, although it's possible to buy your messages in bulk for a discount, i.e. 100 messages a month for $3.99, 200 for $5.99, etc.

      --

      "It's Dot Com!"

  8. The zen of a lost SMS by nsample · · Score: 5, Funny


    If an SMS message is lost on the network, does it make a custom ringtone?

  9. Time limit by InsaneCreator · · Score: 5, Informative

    SMS messages can be set to "expire" if the are not delivered in a certain amount of time. All the phones I've owned had this set to "now or never", so if the message couldn't be delivered at the moment it got trashed. Mos users, of course, have no idea this setting exists.

    1. Re:Time limit by Guido69 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      " SMS messages can be set to "expire" if the are not delivered in a certain amount of time. All the phones I've owned had this set to "now or never", so if the message couldn't be delivered at the moment it got trashed. Mos users, of course, have no idea this setting exists."

      YES!! (Damn mod points - never there when you need them)

      A year+ ago I was trying to set up system-automated cell text messaging from Peregrine ServiceCenter to the Verizon phones carried by our sysadmins. Would only work about 50% of the time, so we scrapped the idea and reverted back to the Hell^Hp Desk calling admins.

      Long story short, I went through 3 levels of support at Verizon to figure out that this was the problem only to subsequently find out there was no way for us the change the expiration through their service. Wonder if that's been fixed yet?

      --
      - If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? - Steven Wright
  10. Yes, SMS Is Unreliable by Crispin+Cowan · · Score: 3, Informative
    I have AT&T cellular, and my SMS is unreliable. Messages can take 12 hours to arrive, and they can fail to arrive all together.

    AT&T got me started on SMS with a "free for now ..." package, then switched to one where incoming is free, and outgoing costs 10 cents each. So I adapted and basically never send a text message from my phone. However, it is handy that you can e-mail messages to an AT&T cell phone at 5055551234@mobile.att.net (i.e. insert appropriate phone number) for no cost. So I regularly e-mail my wife's cell phone from my desktop.

    Crispin
    ----
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
    Immunix: Security Hardened Linux Distribution
    Available for purchase

    1. Re:Yes, SMS Is Unreliable by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think it would be more accurate to say "American cellphone providers are shit" rather than "SMS is unreliable". I have been sending at least 10 messages a day for the last what? 4, 5 years? In that time I've recieved TWO spam messages and NEVER known a message to not be delivered. Of course, if you've got no signal, you can neither send or recieve... but that's wireless for ya!

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  11. at best 3% failure rate by Slurpee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The best service was AT&T, internal SMS, but they still have a 2.2% failure rate. That really is pathetic. Surely a 99.9% success rate is more resonable?

    I would be interested in seeing how they failed. Was it inside the networks? Or did the messages never leave the phone? What were the Telco excuses? WHY is SMS so unreliable?

    1. Re:at best 3% failure rate by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 4, Informative
      I would be interested in seeing how they failed. Was it inside the networks? Or did the messages never leave the phone? What were the Telco excuses? WHY is SMS so unreliable?

      SMS is never intended to be reliable. There are many places that the SMS can be lost. So, lets go through a description. :) Before we begin, let me prefix this by saying it's all GSM, and probably wrong (going from memory), but probably close enough.

      Acronyms:

      • MS - handset
      • BS - base station
      • SMSC - short message service centre
      • HLR - home location registry (knows where destination is).

      Your handset is connected to a base station. The base station talks to the SMSC and gives the SMS to it to deliver. The SMSC then attempts to forward it on to the destination SMSC, who will send it to the destination BS and finally to the destination phone.

      Now, add in the fact that a destination phone may not always be available to receive the SMS. It may be outside of signal range, have a dead battery, or simply be turned off. So the destination SMSC has to store the SMS. The SMS is usually lost because the SMSC has to flush it, like a congested router.

      The next place that it can be lost is in the originating SMSC. Consider, it takes a _lot_ of negotiation between carriers to get links set up, and add more. Cost/SMS, payments, etc have to be agreed. Now, imagine you've saturated that link and need to send another message. Yep, it queues up on the sending SMSC too, only he doesn't care as much because you're not his customer. :)

      Let's look at some math:

      • SMS/subscriber/day: 10 (billed+others)
      • Number of subs/SMSC: 2m
      • Size of SMS: 256bytes
      • Percentage lost: 3%
      • Number of lost messages: 600k
      • Space needed to store all lost messages until delivery: 600,000 * .25kbytes = 150megs
      So, assuming that all messages can be delivered in 24 hours, you would have to find 150megs of free space on the system to get it to work (good luck). Of course, the messages would be late and confusing, but who cares!

      An SMS is an unreliable, time limited message. It doesn't carry long term value, and is usually used for "ping" type messages. Top it off with TV shows receiving votes by SMS which result in rates going from 100SMS/second to 500SMS/second, and you get an idea into how hard the problem can be.

      Jason Pollock

  12. When I lived in Europe... by Osrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... the family used to use SMS for text conversations all the time, my sisters and parents still do. It seems to be a cheap effective way to communicate. Here in the US the networks seem to have done a terrible job of implementation... text messages rarely seem to reach their destination over the same carrier, let alone inter-carrier... I've stopped using them, this report does not come as much of a surprise. GSM is still a pretty new technology to the US, I guess we give it time and they'll get it sorted out. Service was pretty grim in the UK in the early days as well.

    1. Re:When I lived in Europe... by MKalus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In Germany when they first introduced SMS they were free, they later added packages and you paid I think 29 Pf (around 10 cents?) for a message. SENDING I might add not receiving.

      Now I am in Canada and my current provider (Fido) charges me 10 cents for each message I receive (and sent) that is pretty bad I must say.

      I don't use SMS much, first of all hardly anyone here knows that AT&T and Fido offer this service and even if they rather call.

      The only time I use it is to send messages to some friends back in Germany who are too lazy to use email.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  13. You know, maybe someone just caught on. by twofidyKidd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The telco might be dropping out a message here and there to make a few extra bucks on messages.

    Here's the math. If 7.5% of 26,000 messages don't make it through, that what..1950 messages that MAY get repeated. So at $0.10 per message and at a resend rate of 20% (390 resent messages) They make an extra $40.
    Double the amount of messages and increase the failure rate to 10% and a constant resend rate of 20%, thats $104.
    So if a telco runs an SMS service that does some 150,000 messages a day and drops out, maybe 12% of them betting on a %20 resend rate...thats adds up over time.

    --


    Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
  14. SMS: intrusive and an invitation to spammers by sakeneko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What puzzles me is that anyone cares whether SMS messages arrive or not. Most of us have voice mail on our phones? Why does anyone want to turn their cell phone into the electronic equivalent of a doggy leash?

    It's bad enough when you have to carry a pager for work; voluntarily subjecting yourself to that kind of intrusion strikes me as nuts.

    In addition, dishonest marketers and at least some cell service providers are using SMS to send unwanted bulk marketing messages -- that is, they are spamming users. :/

    AT&T, my cell phone service provider, is apparently one of those. After I read complaints from a number of AT&T users who had been SMS-spammed and who said that AT&T refused to stop, I demanded that AT&T disable all "services" on my cell phone account that I had not specifically authorized, including SMS. The representative tried to claim that they couldn't do that, but I insisted and he eventually gave in.

    Don't assume that each new "feature" offered by your cell phone provider (or your ISP) is something you want.

    1. Re:SMS: intrusive and an invitation to spammers by Dr_LHA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What puzzles me is that anyone cares whether SMS messages arrive or not. Most of us have voice mail on our phones? Why does anyone want to turn their cell phone into the electronic equivalent of a doggy leash?

      This is a response that is typical amongst Americans. Apparently SMS is useless and why don't people just call instead? However this is ignoring the vast number of SMS being sent by private individuals in Europe where cell phone take-up is much higher than in the US. There must be some reason why it's so popular? It's not all spam (in fact I've never received a SMS spam). There's billions and billions of text messages being sent each year (according to this article 125 million SMS messages were sent on New Years eve in the UK alone), rivalling email in volume, and certainly overtaking it as an easy and quick messaging system for the masses. SMS is quick, simple and easy way to communicate with people. Much easier than phoning, I can SMS 15 friends at once with the simple message "Meet @ Dog & Hound @ 10pm".

      So yes - there's many of us who find text messaging a excellent form of communication, much easier than pagers, email or even calling someone. It fills a niche and as such is an astoundingly popular. So it's pretty important that SMS messages arrive or not!

      No more "what's the point of SMS" comments please, if you can't figure out what to use it for you're probably just too old to understand what these young-uns are doing with new fangled technology today. ;-)

    2. Re:SMS: intrusive and an invitation to spammers by horne · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What puzzles me is that anyone cares whether SMS messages arrive or not. Most of us have voice mail on our phones? Why does anyone want to turn their cell phone into the electronic equivalent of a doggy leash?

      Hmm, let's look at this :

      Voicemail requires me to call me provider to get the message at $0.xx/min

      Voicemail requires me to have a pen handy to write down any useful notes

      Voicemail requires me to remember my callers return #

      Voicemail requires me to stop a conversation so I can listen to a message

      Voicemail requires me to call it back if I forget the message.

      With SMS, i have the message in text, the sender's callerID is on the message, if they enter any phone #'s I can extract them with a button press, The text is always available, I can reply to the sender without making a call, and If i'm in a meeting I can read and respond to urgent messages with out being too antisocial.

      I'll use SMS over Voicemail any day of the week

  15. Good lord, is this news? by seldolivaw · · Score: 4, Funny
    I didn't realise the USA was that far behind in mobile phone tech! Newsflash: SMS is unreliable, as the rest of the world has known for 5 or 6 years, which is how long we've been using SMS. To save you the trouble in another five years:

    Newsflash! Picture phones are low-quality!

  16. Every message that I receive... by leastsquares · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...has reached it's destination. That's 100% of the messages I read. ;)

  17. Verizon won an anti-spam lawsuit by Adam9 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Quick paste:

    Verizon Wireless emerged the victor from what could be one of the country's first cases of wireless spamming.

    The country's largest wireless carrier, based in Bedminster, N.J., said it had reached a settlement with Acacia National Mortgage, which calls for the lender to stop sending repeated, unsolicited commercial text messages to Verizon Wireless customers.

    Other terms of the settlement were not disclosed, including any possible remuneration for message recipients, who under some plans are charged a per-message fee. Under the Colorado state antispam law on which Verizon based its case, recipients or carriers can sue for $10 per message, plus any actual damages.


    Full article is here

    I love Verizon Wireless.

  18. Re:Failure Rate by Yurian · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I can only speak from personal experience, but I think the failure rate must be far less. I live in Ireland half the year, and spend the other half in the UK. I get delivery reports from the network that tells me whether a message has been delivered, delayed, etc. They've only very occasionally failed - and then it's usually during major network congestion, like at a rock concert, or on new years eve, etc.

    I don't know how popular it is in the US, but text messaging is big over here. People chat by text message about all sorts of things too trivial to ring someone about, plus you can text someone from situations where you couldn't call - such as during a class, etc. The networks operators love it - at $0.10 per message on most pre-paid service, it generates tons of cash or very little network traffic. It was the big surprise money generator when they launched GSM.

  19. FIRST POST! by Seehund · · Score: 4, Funny

    THIS FIRST POST SENT VIA SMS. NO PROBLEM, AS YOU ALL CAN SEE.

    blahblahblahLameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
    Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like SMSing.

    --
    Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
  20. SMS is Monty Python humour by peterpi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Right, you've got a mobile telephone. That's right, a telephone that you can carry around with you, and speak to other people wherever they may be.

    So what do you do with this wonderful invention? Well, a system called SMS is bolted on for unreliably sending very short messages that take an age to type in. For the luxury of sending (or not; who knows?) this uselessly small piece of information, you are prepared to pay the same price as a about a minute's worth of full voice communication. That's roughly the same amount of time it took to type in your four-word question in the first place.

    Oh, and everybody that sends these messages uses a basterdised version of 1337 speak, which is actually considered to be quite cool.

    Man, I hate mobile phones.

    1. Re:SMS is Monty Python humour by denzombie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For the luxury of sending (or not; who knows?) this uselessly small piece of information, you are prepared to pay the same price as a about a minute's worth of full voice communication.

      Dude, you are missing the point.
      It's not about cost, SMS is a tool to bypass the conversation protocols. Instead of calling someone and spending several minutes of:
      "hey."
      "wassup."
      "nuthin."
      "what cha doing?"
      "nuthing.
      "you doing anything?"
      "no."
      "let's go to the club."
      "sure."
      "I'll see ya there."
      "Hey, wait."
      "What?"
      "Ummm, nuthin, I forgot."
      "Ok, see ya there."
      "Ok."

      You can type:

      "Meet me at the club if you're free"

      And there are many ways to get text in.(product_placement) The Treo has a easy to use keyboard. (/product_placement).
      So there.

      --
      --- Evil robots don't kill people, Mad scientists kill people.
    2. Re:SMS is Monty Python humour by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So what do you do with this wonderful invention?

      I could take it to the symphony so that receiving important messages ("Your wife is in labour" or "A kidney donor has been found" or "The server melted down and we're losing $6000 per minute and the other admin is in a coma") can get through without annoying people around me. Your phone/pager/SMS device is set to vibrate (at most) when you receive a call, right? Less important messages ("Honey, can you pick up some milk on your way home") can be safely filed for future reference. No furtive and very annoying (to those around you) conversations, no cryptic number on a little tiny pager display.

      I can take it to the pub and not have to find a quiet place to hear messages. I have on more than one occasion been unable to receive an ordinary call because of ambient noise. SMS might have been very helpful.

      I can always leave my phone at home if I don't want to be disturbed--I'm not dumb enough to have given my boss the number.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    3. Re:SMS is Monty Python humour by macpeep · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could you be any more ignorant? SMS, like voice mail, is a supporting function to calls. Their benefit is that they are un-obtrusive to write as well as to send. Just like email. You can read them are respond to them when you like, or ignore them if you don't consider them important. Unlike calls, which demand your attention NOW!

      Some typical situations where I use SMS:

      - on the subway: "hey, i'll be about 5 minutes late"

      - replying to an SMS like the one above with "ok, no problem"

      - somewhere without a TV or radio and I want to know the results from the Formula 1 race: "F1" Back comes the results, with short commentary if there were some big accident with injury or similar

      - during a meeting, when my phone rang but the person didn't get through because the phone was set on silent to not disturb the meeting: "in meeting. i'll call you after it! was it something urgent?"

      - in Thailand, rather than spending 5 euros per minute (or whatever) on a call: "the plane is 10 hours late. don't bother coming to the airport, i'll take a cab"

      And no. They are not unreliable. Like so many other person's here have pointed out, SMS's work well enough that you don't even think about reliability issues. I personally don't remember any instance where I would have lost an SMS and over the years, I must have sent several thousands of SMS's. And you know, you actually get confirmation when you send it if it was delivered, PLUS, there's a return receipt system.

      The article in this story is talking about text messaging in the *USA*. I wouldn't even be so sure it's about GSM SMS but rather the article writer might just be using "SMS" as a term for proprietary US text messaging systems.

  21. Re:Never gotten a single spam... by sakeneko · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...maybe it's the $70+ fine per spam that does it (or the legal threat of that at least), but I've never recieved a single SPAM in Norway.

    I assume you mean on SMS. If you mean in email too, I'm moving to Norway, no matter how cold it is this time of year! ;P

  22. No problems in New Zealand by Audent · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Vodafone's GSM network always tells me when a message can't be delivered (wrong number entered on my part usually - not a cellphone) and I don't think I've ever had someone (reliably)say "Oh I didn't get that text message"... plenty of no-hopers that can't actually use their phones claiming not to get messages (I usually find them and show them how to use their SMS or predictive texting at that point).
    Telecom NZ uses CDMA an D-AMPS and I haven't heard of any losses on that side at all.

    --
    I am a leaf on the wind
  23. My experience with Sprint by Brian+Hatch · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Sprint seems to have two different message types. The first is a "One Way Message" which is up to 160 characters. I've sent hundreds of these messages and haven't lost a single one yet. You can't reply to them, but you can have them tagged with a source phone number, making it easy for the recipient to call back.

    The second type they have is the "PCS Short Mail Message". This is the one that claims compatibility with non-sprint customers, and is presumably the SMS message. I've probably had 20% of these dropped as I was testing. Now the real problem is that on my phone (Treo 300) you cannot read these messages, you need to click on the URL which sends you to the sprintpcs page, from which you must log in and read the message. This is annoying enough as it is, but the real problem is the fact that the sprintpcs page, for whatever reason, doesn't render on the phone itself. Sure, it works in Mozilla, but the point is to have them at your fingertips, not your desktop.

    Sprint has a free web page where you can send the "One Way Messages" so it doesn't cost a thing. It doesn't even require cookies or anything, so you could even automate it with a brain dead shell script.

    I wanted to have a simple indication when I get new emails when I'm out and about, so I set up a procmail rule that pipes a copy of certain emails to a program email2pager. This program determines if it should send a message (time of day, if I'm active on the mail server, etc) and then scans the email for the Subject and From, then goes and grabs the first bit of the message (stripping MIME headers, "So and so said", commented text, remember, 160 characters max) and then sends it to a second perl script (misnamed sms-sprint) which uses LWP to connect to the Sprint page and send the message.

    It works without sending the whole message to Sprint. Anything that is sensitive should have been sent with PGP, of course.

    If anyone is interested in the scripts, let me know.

  24. What about voicemails? by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sprint has been delivering voicemails late more and more frequently. This is extra bad since it's a business plan. We've had voicemails up to two weeks late. They'll suddenly come through 9 at a time.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  25. How about delayed? by barzok · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Having not used SMS, I don't know if this is the same thing. We use the text messaging features of our phone/pagers at work all the time for automated systems to alert us to system problems. We've had days where things come in very late, sometimes by many hours.

    Unfortunately, we never negotiated an SLA with Verizon, so if their system has problems oh well, too bad.

    IMHO, late messages are as bad as ones that never get delivered. How about numbers on that?

  26. So SMS in the USA is broken then. by horne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems that the report just says that the US carriers are shoddy, while all our European and Oceanic ./ ers say they have no problems with SMS.

    Should this come as a surprise ? Maybe its time the US carriers realised that the reason people there don't uses SMS is because it's broken and needs to be fixed.

  27. Hm by Bert+Peers · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is this report consistent with your experience?

    Well for what it's worth,

    1. International (roaming) messaging is a disaster. You're lucky if anything arrives, and if it does, it can easily be delayed a few days. Once it gets through, you're likely to get the message several times - people reported up to seven times. Can you say ACK ? :)

    2. During peak loads, it looks like the (Belgian) operators give priority to packets originating from subscribers -- ie people who are not using a GSM-version of a calling card containing n minutes / m messages. This was especially obvious at new years' eve -- everyone I know with a subscription got through with every single SMS; people with a card got exactly zero messages through the stampede. If delivery fails, you get a notice though, and afaik you're not billed.

  28. Re:IN THE USA by Snarfy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have yet to see a lost SMS

    Of course you have yet to see a lost SMS. If you actually saw it, then it wouldn't be lost!

    Sorry, couldn't resist the lame joke...

  29. Re:Failure Rate by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know how popular it is in the US, but text messaging is big over here. People chat by text message about all sorts of things too trivial to ring someone about

    Don't worry, over here in the States nothing is too trivial to make a cell phone call about, especially when driving it seems.

  30. Predictable? by Ztream · · Score: 5, Funny

    You gotta love the SMS-stories on slashdot. All the Europeans go "What are you talking about? It works great, I use it all the time!" and all the Americans go "SMS, why would you want to use that?"

  31. Re:Why not just call? by core_blimey · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Squint? Either get glasses or get a better phone! It's not that hard to read most phones really.


    What if you remember something you want to tell someone at 2am, I'm not going to call them and wake them jsut to say "Don't forget the CD in the morning" when I can just SMS it they'll get it when they feel like. Sure I could call them in the morning (as long as I remember then, or write it down to remind me) but then I can also jsut SMS it and be done. SMS does not demand instant attention like a phone (God I hate stopping things just to answer the phone) and it also doesn't require instant responses if you want to think about something.


    You might have virtually free calls where you are, but here it's pretty much the same to call someone for 30secodns as it is to just SMS them. Call when you want a longer chat sure, but just SMS them if you want something trivial.


    As for the whole hunt and peck entry, I've got a pretty small Nokia (8850) but with predictive text and nimble fingers I have no problems typing out a 120 character message in 30 seconds. If you have fat fingers or lower dexterity then try a different phone, or get one of those keyboards that Ericssons have or just don't use SMS.


    On a side note I've not specifically noticed any missing messages (although that could be like the Australian porn legislation, how would I know if I'm missing something?) although I do get the occasional "Messaged Undelivered" back when it's either busy or I'm crossing the bridge on the train. That's another point, you can SMS on a train and not be one of those arseholes who yell into the phone at peak hour! If I get a call on the train then I hang it up, nothing can be so critical that they can't wait for 10 minutes or leave me a voice mail so that I can get back to them later.

    --
    In democracy your vote counts. In feudalism your count votes.
  32. Mobitel.si vs. Cingular by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have a t68 world and a t28 world. the t68 is for my cingular wireless here in the states. Every third sms croaks with this service, while my Slovenia phone co, Mobitel, can get every sms to me when I cut on my t28 in the States, or anywhere for that matter. I think it really has to do with the provider and the importance that they put on sms. Cingular charges 3 bucks for 100 sms's a month, while Mobitel charges nothing and only 1 tolar a minute for phone calls within SLO and 55 tolars a minute for international roaming for my Cingular phone. Cingular charges 400 tolars a minute (2 bucks, roughly) for a minute to my Mobitel phone. US GSM and mobile phone plans in general are a ripoff. How can Slovenia, while pretty prosperous for a former Yugoslav republic, keep rates so cheap? It can just be 90 percent market penetration alone!

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  33. Quiet!!! by Kefabi · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm seeing a lot of "Why the hell would someone use a cell phone to message when they can just talk?!?"

    Well, besides the giggle factor that comes into play the first time you message a friend who's staring at you from right across the room, my answer would be because IT QUIET!!!

    In the movie theater and your mom/boss/significant other wants to know where you are, or why the hell you aren't someplace you're supposed to be? Your phone on vibrate can show you who's calling you, and you can quickly type in a message and reply back with information without disturbing those around you.

    On New Years Eve, I was at a Rave at the LA Sports Arena. Do you think I'll really be able to hear or talk to anybody next to a wall of subs blowing out my ear drums? Considering there were quite a few people there, I also get separated from my friends. Where's my buddies? When do I know when it's time to go? How far is Kenny getting with that Bree chick (seriously!)? There would be no way we could talk on our phones, but we were still able to communicate with our SMS text messages.

    Now granted, SMS isn't nessecary, but then again, this is Slashdot. How often do we do things that are truely nessecary?

    -Kefabi

  34. I can explain... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Insightful
    NineNine said:
    Could somebody please explain why somebody would willingly squint at a tiny screen, and peck at a tiny keyboard to type out some message, reminiscent of the days of the telegraph, instead of just dialing the same damn phone and, god forbid, actually *speak* to someone?
    Here's a good reason: Have you ever ridden on a crowded train? Have you ever been to a movie theater? Have you ever been in a Library? Do you want to hear people yapping away on their phones in those places?

    If you need to get a quick message out to someone or someone wants to get one out to you but doesn't want to disturb you or the others around you because they don't know if you are in a place like those mentioned above, then SMS/email is your friend (as common courtesy is a GOOD thing). Here in Japan, it is considered impolite to use your phone on the trains. Sure some people do, but it is not common at all. People tend to look out for each other.

    And another thing. Everytime there is a story about a movie on Slashdot, there are a lot of posts about people who hate going to movies because of "some jerk with a cel-phone". Well, in Japan, EVERYONE has a mobile phone, and not once have I so much as even heard a phone go off in a movie theatre. Why? Common courtesy. We know how to use the Manner Mode on our phones here, and we know that it is incredibly rude to ruin someone else's movie experience.

    But, if something is urgent, or the person who is trying communicate with you has no clue where you might be so doesn't know if it is OK to talk or not, SMS/email allows us to maintain common courtesy and communicate in such situations.

    That is why we "willingly squint at a tiny screen, and peck at a tiny keyboard to type out some message, reminiscent of the days of the telegraph, instead of just dialing the same damn phone and, god forbid, actually *speak* to someone".

    I hope I was able to successfully answer your question.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  35. Works always, with proof by forged · · Score: 3, Informative
    Here' how it work, drawn from my 3+ years experience with SMS messaging in various european countries (fr, uk, de, nl, be, se, fi, ie)...

    In europe the phone tells you the moment you send your message if the network has accepted it or not.
    If the network has accepted your message for delivery, it will try to deliver it for a certain amount of time (this is configurable on the sender's phone), I have set mine to 72 hours.
    You get a delivery report the moment the network has accepted your message, and another one the moment the intended recipient has gotten it.
    If after the delay the message couldn't be delivered (read: recipient cellphone was offline during all this time) you get a delivery report for failure, so at least you know it's failed.
    This works in almost ALL european countries, the few exceptions are certain operators (like Bouyges Telecom) which filter SMS coming from foreign numbers.

    I'd say the service is great, reliable, informative and cheap. As a result, SMS has mostly replaced pagers in Europe.