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.'"

Comments

At last, the ??? has been found!

[QuantumFTL]

Step 1: Steal Underpants
Step 2: Re-sell w/ sewn-in camera cell phone
Step 3: Profit!

similar

[thedogcow]

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.

Re:similar

[jkburges]

Actually, I think it might be exponential - since for each extra person talking on a phone, each individual feels the need to speak a bit louder, and hence total volume goes up exponentially.

Re:similar

[QuantumFTL]

Eh, I don't worry about the assholes w/ cell phones in theatres. I figure give it a few more years till they start with the brain cancer... *chuckles maniacally*

Some more facts:

[tanveer1979]

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.

Re:Some more facts:

[cannonfodda]

I have had a pretty much similar experience with the U.S. network providers. Certainly in Europe the coverage is significantly better and the total cost of ownership of a phone seems a lot less than people are paying in the U.S.

But it's not that surprising really. I've alwasy understood that the economics of the mobile network (feel free to shoot me down here since I'm relaying and might have got this wrong) are essentially controlled by population density. There is a point beyond which it becomes uneconomic to develop a digital cell network due to the limited range of the transmitters (about 11 miles nominal range the last time I looked).

So it's not really surprising that the largest developments are in the developing countries and specifically Asia. There are large VERY densely populated urban centres which, until recently, had no cell coverage. So even selling call time at a low rate will mean that companies can recover their investment very quickly. So I would guess that the graph in the article will have to flatten out, or the emphasis will shift to different markets as the large urban areas in Asia and South America become saturated with providers in the same way as European cities are.

In Europe after the inital rapid development of the urban networks the coverage of rural areas was very slow. Scotland was a prefect example. Over half the population of the country lives in a 50 mile strip along the central belt of the country. Fine. Great coverage. Go up to the highlands....and until recently it was a very different story. The landscape and low population density made it a costly investment to cover these areas. You would have to expect that the same thing will happen in these new markets. Explosive development in e.g Mumbai followed by a much, much slower growth over the country as a whole. I'd love to see a distribution map of this stuff.

Anyway back to the original point. I've always understood that the reason why the service in the U.S. was rubbish was that, once the urban areas were well covered there was no real impetus to extend that to the gulfs between cities.

Re:Some more facts:

[pimpimpim]

Why are all the people lauding the european cell network here? I agree the quality is ok, but the pricing is ridiculous. Calling to a mobile phone can be up to 20 cent or more, say 20 times more than a normal phone call. Also, since there are so many small countries in europe, providers earn a shitload of money on 'roaming' costs, even when the same companies are present in almost all countries by now. It has nothing to do with actual costs anymore, but only with how much they can get away with to ask. The fact that there is 'competition' isn't helping much out here, as they silently make sure not to underbid their competitors too much.

Re:Some more facts:

[Don_dumb]

Also, since there are so many small countries in europe, providers earn a shitload of money on 'roaming' costs

That is why the EU is bringing in legislation to reduce roaming charges across the continent http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activitie s/roaming/roaming_regulation/index_en.htm and is (and has been) investigating the mobile companies for anti-competitive behaviour.

Calling to a mobile phone can be up to 20 cent or more, say 20 times more than a normal phone call

I never quite worked this one out myself, I think it has just been accepted without really questioning why. It is another reason why most of us (in the UK) have mobiles and text each other (although a simple text message can often turn into a big text conversation and end up being more expensive than just calling the person in the first place)

Are there enough digits in a phone number?

[c0d3r]

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?

Re:Are there enough digits in a phone number?

[Don_dumb]

Ladies and gentlemen, the stereotypical American.
Pity him he doesn't know there is a whole world out there.

If you want to be more drammatic

[mgblst]

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.

Emerging nations?

[Forge]

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.

So that's where my phone went...

[Sting_TVT]

Leave a phone on a cafe table..... See it on CNN three days later in Mogadishu

Fact:Metcalfe's Law Explains Cell-Phone Popularity

[reporter]

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.

Cellular Boom ? You are dead on target.

[ravee]

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.

Mobile phones get people out of poverty

[MosesJones]

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.

Kurzweil was right again

[weasel99]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Accelerating_R eturns

The great thing about wireless

[smilindog2000]

is it's super-low up-front costs, not for the hand-sets, but for an operator to offer initial coverage.

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/communica tions/hurricane-relief-1105.htm

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?

Re:Fact:Metcalfe's Law Explains Cell-Phone Popular

[thesandtiger]

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.

Re:yeah right

[Zenaku]

I've always kinda wondered why nobody has marketed a phone (or maybe they have and I've never seen it) that has 2 slots for SIM cards. It would ring for either number, and you'd be able to switch the one used for outgoing calls via the menu or a shortcut key. Seems like there would be a market for it, but I've never seen such a thing.

Oh, and if I'm the first one to think of it, then PATENT PENDING! Patent pending, patent pending, patent pending.

Patent pending.