Slashdot Mirror
Over 2.5 Billion Cellular Connections Now Active
An anonymous reader writes "It appears that humankind has managed to spread cellular technology like a virus. About 2.5 billion cellular connections exist in the world today, according to an estimate from the GSM Association.
It took 20 years to reach 1 billion connections, three years to reach 2 billion connections and the market is moving to reach its third billion in a period of just over two years.
Not surprisingly, the countries with fastest growth are the 'emerging nations.'"
You could say it took millions of year to reach 1 billion connections, since hasn't all of mans endeavours, from fire and the wheel to radio and transistors been moving towards creating mobile phones? Depends on how you look at it.
Right now I'm working for one of the "culprits" in this phenomenal growth. Digicel allegedly sold 300,000 phones in it's 1st month of operations in Haiti. If you check the CIA Factbook, it basically says this is the worst run country in the western hemisphere. I have been here for 3 months now and I can say it's the worst I have seen.
Despite that, Somebody sold 300,000 phones in a month. How? Because a prepaid cellphone with free incoming calls is exactly what you need when you are impoverished. Looking for work? Put the number on your resume. Family members in a developed country? Give them the number so they can call you and you can ask for remittances.
Seriously. That's why it makes sense to sell a U$75 phone for U$25 to someone who had to save for weeks to pay that price.
So yeah. A nation doesn't even have to be emerging for Cellphones to take off. It could be a textbook case of "How to, not develop".
PS: Another sign of underdevelopment is when you must import almost your entire technical staff.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Part of the reason mobile phone ownership growing so fast in 3rd world countries is the lack of infrastructure - large expanses of 3rd world countries have no phone lines at all, and a mobile phone is a cheap and easy way to communicate in any language, especially when using recycled handsets from 1st world countries.
A small village can share a handset, which both facilitates trade and also obtains the best prices for their vegetables in the markets in the surrounding town.
Also, greater population density in many 3rd world countries allows for more phones per base station (ie. greater economies of scale), and therefore cheaper plans. You'd be surprised at how hard telcos in India and China compete for customers, something telcos in the US have managed to avoid for many years.
Metcalfe's Law explains well why a cellular network grows rapidly. The value of a network grows as the square of the number of members of a network. Here, members are owners of cell phones. As the value increases, more people want to be part of the network. So, more people buy cell phones. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
I agree wholeheartedly with the article. In India for instance, Now a days where ever you look, you can see people with a cellphone glued to their ear. News channels provide SMS (Short Messaging Service) numbers where the viewers can send messages via their cellphones. And the cellular service doesn't come cheap. It is atleast twice as costly as making calls via landline though deals are available dime a dozen. Sometimes I wonder if all this is really a good thing.
Somebody should do a detailed study of the negetive effects of using a cellphone.
Linux Help
for all things on Linux
There have been a series or articles in the last few years in the Economist about how having mobile phones helps to lift people out of poverty in the developing world. Their view, and I have to say I agree, is that its more important to get people a communication network (mobile phones) than it is to get them a computer.
Its a genuinely good thing that this is taking off in the developing world to help people create small businesses and to reduce barriers.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Accelerating_R eturns
is it's super-low up-front costs, not for the hand-sets, but for an operator to offer initial coverage.
a tions/hurricane-relief-1105.htm
With wired service, you have to invest up-front, burying cable throughout a population center before you can acquire your first customer. With wireless, you put up one tower, set it for maximum range, and open shop.
A single WiMax tower can reach 40 miles in radius. After Katrina, Intel donated $5M in hardware, and was basically able to cover the Gulf Coast. Bell South says they'll needs between $700M and $900M, and they're still not done with repairs. That cost might be fair, but it shows the advantages in bringing in wireless cheaply. Here's an Intel link:
http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/communic
I think we should be using cheap wireless technology for IP based emergency communications, enabling people to help each other so they wont have to wait for FEMA to arrive. Check out what hams do for free:
http://eng.usna.navy.mil/~bruninga/aprs.html
A system built on the Internet model might enable neighbors to help each other, which is basically required after a mass disaster, since any emergency response team will be overwhelmed. Do you know how you'd find your neighbors after a disaster? How would they find you?
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
It is only hilarious if you don't have a basic understanding of economic terms. This has no bearing on the "value" of the culture or the depth of the history.
Something I never really noticed until lately and I need to rant. Mod me however you wish my karma can take it.
When in hell did it become socially acceptable to receive a call at your table at a restaurant? Not McDonalds but a typical restaurant that actually has a dress code.
Proper manners would dictate to excuse yourself from the table and take the call elsewhere rather than talking extremely loudly and then giving dirty looks at other patrons when you can't hear over other people talking.
Sorry for the rant. I feel better now.