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

[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.

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.

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.

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.