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.'"
Step 1: Steal Underpants
Step 2: Re-sell w/ sewn-in camera cell phone
Step 3: Profit!
I have a similar graph.... Y axis is number of "cell conditions" and the X axis is the level "Assholeivity in Public (theater, etc). " Yes, I think is a directly proportional relationship.
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
I spent a small amount of time in the US, and surprisingly the tarrif structure and the talk time etc., plans available in India are far better than in the US. In broadband access developed nations have lot of lead over developing ones, maybe because to have good connectivity you require undersea cables as most of the servers are in west, but in case of cellular connections countries like India are way ahead of the US/Europe, and very soon 3G deployment will be mainstream.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
How can this be if there aren't enough digits in a US phone number:
1,23-4,56-7,890
allows ~1.2445679 digits (some rounding error)
What do class 5 switches allow globally and whats the denomination?
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 ?
No. That's because India has the 2nd largest population. It's beeten by China.
A better measure is per capita deployment where some European countries have passed 100% (more people with 2 or more cellphones than people with none at all).
Or even small "Developing" countries like Jamaica with Over 2 Million Cellphones and a population of 2.7 Million.
--= 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.
Leave a phone on a cafe table..... See it on CNN three days later in Mogadishu
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
Business and pleasure.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
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.
Not really, as you can dial into and out of the cellular network from/to an existing landline network.
People buy mobile phones because they see value in them; whether that's witnessing first hand the usefulness of being able to be contacted (nearly) anywhere on the planet, or simply being seen to be important enough to have a mobile phone. The value isn't really brought from the network itself, though.
Connections means "calls", not "phones".
That makes no sense at all. Huge numbers are already connected to the phone network via their landlines. The reason mobiles are so popular in emerging nations is that it's much cheaper to set up a cell in an area and sell people mobiles than it is to lay cable to everybody's house.
Not only is what you're saying not a fact, it's a complete misapplication of Metcalfe's idea.
People who had a landline were already connected to the network - getting a cell gives no value from the viewpoint of giving access to the network.
The primary reason cell use has spread so much - specifically in "emerging" nations - is because it is MUCH cheaper to set up a cellular system and spread access than it is to do with landlines.
Another big reason would be the mix of convenience and quality of service. In my case, I ditched my landline 2 years ago because it was pointless. I like having a phone with me all the time. If I want to be unavailable, I can put it on silent mode. A phone that sits at home - a place where I spend maybe 4 waking hours a day - just seemed pointless. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks that way.
My hope is that since cells are now virtually everywhere, people who used to feel the need to talk at the top of their lungs to let everyone know they had one will now see it as a sign of class to speak softly on them. I am doing my best to encourage people to do just that - when I am on the bus or train and someone is having a LOUD conversation on their phone, I will look at them raptly, and, if they ever fall silent, I will say "Oooh, what's he saying now?" When they inevitably say something along the lines of "this is a private conversation" I explain that, at the volume they were speaking, it was anything but. Of course, I say it with a great deal of charm, so I have yet to be bopped in the nose.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Oh, and if I'm the first one to think of it, then PATENT PENDING! Patent pending, patent pending, patent pending.
Patent pending.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.