The Death of the "Cell Phone"

PreacherTom writes "Once upon a time, the now-eponymous portable derived its name from the small sections (deemed "cells") into which a city was divided in order to keep voice calls smooth and uninterrupted. Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones, while Wi-Fi and WiMax use ever-growing amounts of network bandwidth. Both make the "cellular" moniker obsolete. Is it time for a new name, or is a rose by any other name still as sweet?"

Comments

cell phones

[forrestf]

Its too common of a name now of days, i think portable commucation devices, is a little long for most people

Re:cell phones

[__aaclcg7560]

Let's call it the Communicator and leave it at that.

Re:cell phones

[maxwell demon]

Modern cell phones tend to be small, don't they? So what would be an appropriate name for a small phone?
Obviously: Microphone! ;-)

Re:cell phones

[markbark]

Why not just keep "cell phone?" after all we still "dial" them, don't we?
When's the last time you saw a rotary phone?

--MAB

Re:cell phones

[HeroreV]

I've actually heard more and more people just calling a cell phone a "phone". It's only when needing to differentiate that people call it a "cell phone".

We already have one

[stupidfoo]

"Mobile Phone" or just "Mobile"

Re:We already have one

[greoff]

With the recent media frenzy of crushing everything down to one word, I am sure your Mobile Phone will become Mone.

Re:We already have one

[Timesprout]

or "Handy" if you are German

Re:We already have one

[Josh Lindenmuth]

'Mobile phone' is certainly more descriptive of our phones' usage, but to say that we no longer use cells is just plain uninformed. Until we are all communicating to each other via satellite, the world will be divided into small cells for mobile phones to utiliize. While the density of these cells may be much greater than 10 years ago, they still exist (as anyone who has driven off a major road or through the country can attest), and phones still negotiate with many different towers while moving from cell to cell during a call.

Even if we were using satellite, there would still need to be cells of sorts, they would just be much larger (e.g. thousands or even millions of square miles instead of 5 to 100's of square miles for today's cells).

Re:We already have one

[Kuvter]

You're from England aren't you.

Re:We already have one

[famebait]

I am sure your Mobile Phone will become Mone.

Well, since it's already been shortened to just "mobile" (or the local version of taht) in most countries, I doubt that very much.

But it might very well become just "mob" or "mobe" in those languages where that works phonetically and fits the language. I've heard it a bit in Norwegian, although it doesn't
seem to be quite taking over just yet.

Re:We already have one

[Jeff DeMaagd]

That's what I thought. I think it's funny that PreacherTom can use a fairly obscure word "eponymous" properly couldn't think of "mobile". If one is going to try to show oneself off as a wordsmith, I'd suggest finding some other way.

One thing that the providers here seem to use often is "Wireless", which describes it just fine, except for the few people that somehow think of "Wireless" as only being "WiFi".

Re:We already have one

[non-poster]

Using satellites would introduce too much latency to be practical for routine phone calls. The RF signals still travel at the speed of light (or less through the atmosphere, etc). We can't change physics...

Re:We already have one

[stargazerAD]

da. i've called it a mobile since i got my first digital handset. the "cellular" moniker died when i upgraded from my nokia 918 on cellularONE.

Re:We already have one

[hotdiggitydawg]

Exactly. "Cell phone" has been deprecated by "Mobile phone" in most of the rest of the English-speaking world already. C'mon USA, 1994 called - they want their terminology back...

Re:We already have one

[kypper]

Rogers here in Canada has been using only one term for the past 3 years: Wireless.

Re:We already have one

[voice_of_all_reason]

Nah, then he would have said "moebile"

Re:We already have one

[forgoil]

Why not MoPho instead? Has kind of a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Come on, let's go for MoPho everyone!

Re:We already have one

[1u3hr]

One thing that the providers here seem to use often is "Wireless", which describes it just fine, except for the few people that somehow think of "Wireless" as only being "WiFi".

Except "wireless" is what my grandfather called his bakelite cased valve radio.

Re:We already have one

[paulpas]

I used to work for a large telecommunications company where I was part of designing and installing the 3G data network. As such, in 2001, we got the "color phones" before anyone else and we always called them Mobile Phones, even though it was PCS country. Later, after we realized that many software kings weren't up to the task of our user load, we called it the "Electronic Leash."

Re:We already have one

[Firehed]

Damn, just spent my last mod point. That comment's going to get me through econ class today.

Re:We already have one

[91degrees]

Mot of my friends have adopted the spoonerism of Phobile Mone. It seems to fit.

Re:We already have one

[drinkypoo]

Until we are all communicating to each other via satellite, the world will be divided into small cells for mobile phones to utiliize

1. Satellite communication introduces latency and adds expense. It's unlikely to ever become the dominant means of terrestrial communications.
2. Ultimately we will likely end up with mesh-networked devices communicating on an IP network.

Assuming that's how it works out, maybe we'll all move from cellphones to meshphones.

Re:We already have one

[StarvingSE]

+1 freakin' hysterical

Re:We already have one

[udderly]

Artist: Isaac Hayes
Song: Theme From Shaft Lyrics
Shaft!

Who's the black private dick
That's a sex machine to all the chicks?
(Shaft!)
You're damn right

Who is the man
That would risk his neck for his brother man?
(Shaft!)
Can ya dig it?

Who's the cat that won't cop out
When there's danger all about
(Shaft!)
Right on

You see this cat Shaft is a bad MoPho --
(Shut your mouth)
But I'm talkin' about Shaft
(Then we can dig it)

He's a complicated man
But no one understands him but his woman
(John Shaft)

Re:We already have one

[tylernt]

Using satellites would introduce too much latency to be practical for routine phone calls

Almost -- using geostationary satellites would introduce too much latency to be practical for routine phone calls. LEO or Low Earth Orbit satellites are close enough to introduce minimal delay though. In fact, Iridium and GlobalStar (and the older Inmarsat) satellite phone services use LEO satellites. There is still a little bit of lag, but not too bad.

Re:We already have one

[Atlantis-Rising]

Yes, and no. There are many types of orbits. Maintaining communications satellites in geosync orbit is probably both inefficient and a bad idea in terms of signal latency. A constellation of LEO satellites at about 750 km altitude or so will have a round-trip latency of less than a millisecond- practical for all applications. Obviously inter-satellite routing and ground-station routing will increase latency, but that'd happen anywhere.

Moreover, you'd have signal practically anywhere you could get a dedicated satellite lock, which should be almost anywhere. And if not, all you need is to up the density of the constellation. You'd probably need to anyway, because the minimum cluster size (what, four dozen satellites or so?) is probably not sufficient to route millions or hundreds of millions of seperate, individual phone calls.

Re:We already have one

[stargazerAD]

and to combine my note and yours ad infinitum, try to remember the last time you filled out a contact template on a site, and it asked for your "cellular" number...it's been "mobile" as long as i can remember.

Re:We already have one

[Doctor O]

Parent got it right, it's indeed "Handy" here in Germany. Many Germans mistakenly use "handy" instead of "mobile" when talking to native English speakers.

Then again, if it really is funny because it's a reference to a handjob, I'd like to know. ;) Actually telling people this will help them avoiding saying "handy" when they mean "mobile".

Re:We already have one

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is strange when you ask a German if they have a document handy and they give you their cellphone number.

Re:We already have one

[non-poster]

750km divided by 300,000,000 m/s gives about 2.5 ms, so round-trip would be about 5ms, but your point is valid... if the person on the other end of the line is geographically close enough to you to be using the same satellite.

How much bandwidth would be needed to handle the number of simultaneous calls to each one of the LEO satellites? Cellular cells in cities cover a rather small area.

Re:We already have one

[aplusjimages]

I'm going to start calling it that. From here on out Forgoil will be known as the person who coined MoPho. I likes.

Re:We already have one

[inKubus]

Yeah. I think the main problem plauging mobile phones is the providers themselves. They insist on crippling the phones, making it impossible to create your own software, and charge too much. There is simply no economic incentive for them to do more than they already do.

People like the homebrew mobile club are trying to make a new device that takes the mono out of the poly and gives us all a chance to make it big in the mobile arena. Until the hobbiest can play and innovate, the industry will never be ubiquitous. Look at the PC platform; it really was what led to the widespread adoption of the Internet. BBS's were there first. I don't believe that homebrew mobiles are going to be the wave of the future (where everyone builds their own mobile), but I do believe that it will force innovation that the monopoly providers are not capable of.

Every day I look at my phone and wish I could do more with it. Just play with it, customize features, etc. And though this is somewhat possible with BITPIM and hacking the control software, it's not the same as having a phone with an open operating system that I can install whatever capabilities I want on it. I don't even care if the device is totally tiny; I'd be happy with a brick that can talk on the mobile nets, low battery consumption, etc, provided it can run anything I want and do anything with data that I want.

This device would go far beyond the Palm mobiles and far beyond the blackberry in customizability. The whole thing would be based on components which can be plugged together to make a whole device. So, you could choose your case, your processor, your screen, your radio, your memory, camera, OPERATING SYSTEM etc. and it would all be modular components. You could even have a small hard drive ala iPod. The whole thing could run of a variety of power sources, from off the shelf batteries to car to the wall without a bunch of stupid adapters. And of course it could connect to computers with USB, bleutoof and ethernet (wireless or wired).

Then, in public places you could have special docking stations that would give you access to a fullsize keyboard, mouse and screen. You could have tons of software that could do anything. For instance, since anyone can write software, a local restaurant might higher a phone geek to program a special server at their restaurant that gives the specials, and handles the bill. The bill could be signed authentic with a private key of the restuarant (thus getting rid of all those pesky receipts come tax time).

I can think of hundreds more. The best part is I DON'T HAVE TO. Because anyone can think of anything and do it, stuff no one has even thought of will come out. Voice services based on asterisk are just the beginning (not that running your own mobile provider wouldn't be awesome)

Anyway, although the cell network is pretty crappy, it works. They have covered most of the country with at least analog service. The idea we need to focus on is riding on their investment; we can't afford to WiFi the country or even a city in most cases. Although, along those lines, an automatic Wifi exchange would definitely open up the airwaves a lot more, because private individuals have a motivation to open their bandwidth. Anyway, the main thing holding back innovation isn't the network, it's the hardware and provider monopolies on the hardware. So, fight back, join the club, make a cell phone, etc.

Re:We already have one

[AugstWest]

And this is just ridiculous:

it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones

Whenever you see "almost seems like" in an argument, you can replace it with "I have no data to support this." Voice calls the least-used function of most phones? Maybe in your circle of geek friends, but beyond the occasional Bejeweled and Tetris, the vast majority of people use their "mobile" phones to make voice calls.

Smartphones are such a tiny fraction of the market. Even the ubiquitous cameras on the phones today are often just conversation starters.

Slow news day indeed.

Re:We already have one

[CrazyTalk]

In the UK, maybe, but that's not common usage in the USA. Personally, I have no problem keeping the "Cell phone" moniker - after all, we still "dial" phones even though rotary phones have long since vanished and "type" letters even though we no longer use typewriters (and come to think of it, "Type" probably predates typewriters and takes its name from old printing presses)

Re:We already have one

[siriuskase]

Using cells is simply a way of sharing the resource amongst more users. We will probably continue to use cells until we have a better way of splitting up the spectrum. Even then, we will probably continue to use cells in combination with other resource sharing technologies.

but, I'm in the industry, and it never made much sense to me for users to refer to cell phones as such or especially simply as "cells". that reflects an understanding of the technology that is unnecesary for a user. I've always preferred the term "mobile" since it is usage related rather than technology related. If you handed a nontechie an oldfashioned, precelluar car phone, they could call it a mobie and be correct. If they called it a cell, they would be wrong, but they wouldn't even know why.

I doubt that the main attraction of celluar will go away, it allows more user operating at lower power. Celluar concepts will remain applicable even with WiFi phones, or mesh phones, or whatever is coming next.

Re:We already have one

[thrillseeker]

That's nothing - Mr. Bush pronounces it cellular ...

oh wait.

Re:We already have one

[Umbrae]

Yes, it really does mean handjob. I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

Re:We already have one

[Mixel]

Check out SqueakyMoPho.

Re:We already have one

[Anonymous Coward]

1994 called - they want their terminology back...

They also want their "X called, they want their Y back" zinger back.

Re:We already have one

[GoneSouth]

Hi, ex- Sprint engineer here. Actually, we do *not* use cells any longer. Or at least they don't exist in the sense that they existed 10 years ago. The "cell" in cellular phone specifically refers to the old analog mobile phone system (AMPS) where the service networks were divided up into hexagonal cells, with one radio tower serving each cell, and adjacent cells had to be on different frequencies so as to not interfere with its neighbors. With the advent of digital / pcs in the late 90s, networks are no longer divided up into cells, since digital voice packets for different calls could now be sent on the same frequency (code division multiplexing or time division multiplexing), or conversely, packets from the same call could be sent on different frequencies (spread spectrum).

Thus, cells have been obsolete since the advent of digital phones. You might recall the old Sprint PCS ads " ... the clear alternative to cellular" - emphasizing the distinction between pcs (digital) and cellular (analog). Of course the radio towers still serve a finite geographical area, but this is referred to as the coverage area, and is not a "cell" in the technical sense.

Re:We already have one

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically you want a customizable laptop that you can fit in your pocket, that's genius!

Re:We already have one

[Anonymous Coward]

Since these new phones seem unable to be used as phones, we may as well drop the "phone" term in the name.

Maybe "portable crappy camera/crappy mp3 player/crappy game device/crappy web browser" would be more accurate?

Re:We already have one

[Atlantis-Rising]

You're right, I dropped a decimal place and got 0.5ms. On the other hand, inter-satellite data transfer could be a massive improvement over terrestrial systms; if you give each satellite a direct laser link with every other visible satellite in the constellation, you could lose huge chunks of the constellation and still maintain an operable, albeit slower, network.

Given the GSM codec of 13 kb/s, and a total estimated mobile phone subscriber base of 2.15 billion, that's 3.25 TB/s across the entire network. According to Wikipedia, you need a minimum of 24 satellites for a MEO constellation. Teledesic, for example, proposed 840 satellites at an altitude of 700 km- so a very large LEO constellation. That gives each satellite a bandwidth of 1.609 GB/s, which is not totally unreasonable.

(Of course, also, the fact that not ALL 2.15 billion subscribers will be online at any one time, so you could probably get away with chopping that number by an order of magnitude.)

The difference, I suppose, is that a large portion of your satellite constellation will be over, say, the Atlantic... where it won't be very helpful. Those portions of the network could serve as route-and-relay, or they could do the computing backbone, maybe.

You'd need on-the-fly reprovisioning of the satellites, however, I think, depending on where they're orbiting.

Re:We already have one

[It'sYerMam]

I've never heard handy used to mean handjob, but it's odd how many germans say handy. We were told what it means early on, though, so I just ignore it usually. What's also odd is the pronunciation of 'V' as 'W' (you'd expect german people to say W as V not the other way around)

Re:We already have one

[cayenne8]

"and to combine my note and yours ad infinitum, try to remember the last time you filled out a contact template on a site, and it asked for your "cellular" number...it's been "mobile" as long as i can remember."

You must be young..or not from the US, or possibly both.

I rarely hear anyone I know or work with not refer to it as a cell phone. I hear a few mobile phones, but, that is much more rare.

I've seen old episodes of AbFab from Great Britan...and back a few years they were referring to them as 'mobiles'...so, maybe this is more a european thing?

Re:We already have one

[Doctor Memory]

When I used to go to Argentina, everyone there just called it a "mobi". This was ten years ago.

Re:We already have one

[ATMD]

I prefer "moible".

It sounds better :)

Re:We already have one

[DDLKermit007]

Already is a single word, and has been for a long time. Depending on where your from most will say Mobile or Cell.

Re:We already have one

[pctech3]

Actually, 'Mobile' phone is what they were called BEFORE the 'cell' phone was invented and popularized. I believe that in most of the rest of the English-speaking world they never updated to 'cell' phone, but just kept calling them 'mobile' phones. People that call them 'mobile' phones today are still living in pre-cell phone days. And calling them 'wireless' phones just causes confusion with 'cordless' phones.

I say call them what they are, 'cell' phones. Then when 'satellite' phones become popular, we can call them 'satellite' phones and people will know the difference!!!!

***Sig Block***

Hmmmm... the built in spell checker in Firefox could have a huge impact on slash dot ;)

******

I didn't steal your sig, I just borrowed it. You can have it back now.

Thank You.

Re:We already have one

[g1gg13r]

As much as I hate how providers cripple their phones, they do have good reasons to do so. When you get a phone from a provider, you pay a highly subsidized price. If the provider gives you a phone at a subsidized price, they need to make that money back by locking you into a contract, by charging you for uploads/downloads, etc. They not only have to pay for maintaining their network; they also pay a big portion of the cost of the phones. If the demand for phones at full price was high enough, then I would agree with your argument. If I paid full price for a phone, I would demand that it wasn't locked down. In addition, consider the technical support nightmare that carriers would have if they allowed you to do whatever you wanted to your phone. Your ISP already has this problem... they get calls from people running 50 different versions of operating systems, and you end up paying for the support costs through your increased subscription fees. The bottom line is that the economics of the current mobile phone market in the USA dictates that the phones need to be locked down. Guess what carrier locks down their phones the most in the USA? Guess what carrier is the most popular in the USA? The answer to both is Verizon Wireless. Is that a coincidence? They lock down their phones to reduce tech support costs, and make more money from people who have to pay to download apps, upload pics, etc. They then (hopefully) invest part of the money in improving their mobile network, which means better call quality for subscribers (which is the main reason why we have cell phones, right?). I would much rather choose a locked down phone with a carrier where I can make calls reliably than a completely open phone with a carrier where I can barely make calls. If you are willing to pay full price for a phone along with high subscription fees, then open platform is the way to go. Unfortunately, that is not what most consumers want at this point.

Re:We already have one

[operagost]

Mo-Fi.

Re:We already have one

[SnowZero]

Sure, but you'll have to start referring to satellite phones as "mobile phones" as well, and "fixed-line telephones" as immobile phones. Nobody even says "mobile phone", as they use the shortened name "mobile", which is dumb, as it could refer to just about anything (how about a car, that moves too).

If land-line telephones are on their way out, just call it a "phone" and be done with it. Mobility/wireless will just be assumed.

Re:We already have one

[Doctor Memory]

Until we are all communicating to each other via satellite

I don't know that we'll ever all be doing that. Punching a signal several hundred kms (vs. 8-20 with a GSM phone) takes either a fair amount of power or a big antenna, either of which makes the phone heavier and more bulky. Big and bulky phones won't sell, no matter how many ringtones/videos/games they can store. Better power sources may help, but if you shrink the antenna, you're going to have to use more power, and people are already concerned about microwaving their brains. When word gets out that you're pushing more than three times the power (7W as opposed to 2W on a GSM phone), people are going to avoid them like the plague (so to speak)[0].

There's also the issue with needing a line-of-sight shot to the satellite to contend with. While I heartily endorse the practice of stepping outside to make a phone call (for other people... ;), that's probably the biggest stumbling block. Until we all get our flying cars with the bubble windows, of course.
---
[0] Interestingly, a quadrafiliar helix antenna (suitable for satellite work) actually radiates less power horizontally (i.e., towards the head) than a typical monopole (standard cell phone antenna). This is per unit of power, though, and it's not enough less to compensate for trebling the power output.

Re:We already have one

[TheRaven64]

Just for reference, transatlantic VoIP calls can have latency of around 200ms (two orders of magnitude more), presumably due to packet switching overheads. They are quite usable, although the lag is sometimes noticeable.

Re:We already have one

[TheRaven64]

Is it really that bad in the USA? In the UK, I got a Nokia N70 with my contract, which acts as a modem over bluetooth (so I can use 3G speeds from my laptop or other bluetooth-enabled device), supports bluetooth file transfer (although not as well as Ericsson handsets do), and allows me to install Symbian and J2ME apps. Oh, and plays non-DRM'd MP3 and AAC files.

The file manager that comes with the phone, for example, is quite bad, but there is a free third-party one that is a lot better. On my last contract, once my handset was too old (and the NiMH battery lasted 10 minutes on a full charge), I bought a cheap replacement on eBay and just swapped the SIM card over. If you get a handset from a network, they lock it to their network (and it costs something like £10 to get it unlocked, if you can't do this yourself), but they don't disable any features. If they did, people would either switch to a network that didn't, or get the contract without a handset (which is cheaper) and buy a handset elsewhere.

Some providers even provide pay-as-you-go SIM cards for free, on the basis that you need to buy credit to actually use them (they come with something like £1). With the rate people upgrade handsets, you can pick up 1-2 year old model for next to nothing.

Re:We already have one

[include($dysmas)]

ive heard "handy" in germany .... however i, and most folk i know, simply say "phone" ...i do tend to say things similar to "call the landline" when i wish them to not call something other than my mobile (ill use that word here for clarity) phone.

Re:We already have one

[hotdiggitydawg]

While I'll concede "mobile" is the default slang version, plenty of people still use the canonical term "Mobile phone" whenever there is a need to disambiguate the subject. Read a newspaper sometime.

To put the terminology in an OO format, IMHO the "Satellite phone" and "cordless phone" types inherit from the "mobile phone" type. For nominative consistency we should be referring to "GSM phones" etc. but it's a relatively new technology and sometimes it takes a while for terms to sink in... GSM will probably be obsolete before that happens, but people already talk about WAP phones, so you see my point. You don't call them all "objects" now do you?

Re:We already have one

[Fred_A]

With the recent media frenzy of crushing everything down to one word

I like "Handheld Device For Speaking At a Distance Using Digital Radio Network Communication" (or Utilizing Digital Radio Network Communication if you insist in being trendy). You people are just lazy.

Re:We already have one

[Fred_A]

Parent got it right, it's indeed "Handy" here in Germany. Many Germans mistakenly use "handy" instead of "mobile" when talking to native English speakers.

Same thing in France where people have for some reason adopted the name "portable" (means the same thing as in English).
Originally, cell phones are supposed to be either called "téléphones cellulaires" or "téléphones mobiles" which just becomes "cellulaire" or "mobile" in everyday speech. The problem with "portable" (beyond the lack of clear origin) is that the same word is used for laptops which can lead to some confusion with those of us who carry a lot of gadgets. And there isn't even some kind of kinky double entendre to make up for it. :(

Re:We already have one

[undii]

Being an Australian, as we have always called them mobile phones, hearing the term "Cell phone" in an American tv show/movie always made me think the term for this sounded stupid. I wondered how Americans thought of us calling them "mobile phones". It's funny how different countries can have nationwide slang for what is essentially the same item(s).

Re:We already have one

[operagost]

LebMoFo Yes, they used to give out "@lebmofo.com" emails.

Re:We already have one

[Strange Ranger]

How about just "Phone" ?

I forget what old "worse than B" sci-fi movie I was watching and they kept saying things like "computer data", "computer results", and "computer readout".

It sounded ridiculous because of course now it's just "data", "results", and "display".

So again, I say "phone" is the new name for "cell phone". It's no longer helpful or novel to differentiate. In fact I'd say "land line" is the new differentiation for the old technology.

Re:We already have one

[fatphil]

Germany and Demark at least have basically 'handy' as their one-word name.

Perhaps TFA's author could explain how Mobility Management works in wireless internet phones.

Re:We already have one

[stargazerAD]

responding in the most non-aggressive manner possible, no, i live in massachusetts. and i'm 27. us young kids have been calling it a mobile for years. pronounced "moh-bil". sorry if that cramped your style, boss.

Re:We already have one

[da_flo]

"Mobile Phone" or just "Mobile"In the article summary, one of the reasons why the word "Cell Phone" should become obsolete is that it seems that voice calls or the least used function of most phones. So the main point is that it's not really a phone anymore.

Re:We already have one

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is strange when you ask a German if they have a document handy and they give you their cellphone number.

Why on earth would someone ask an entire sentence in English but include a single German word and complain because it is confusing?

Re:We already have one

[dgatwood]

Verizon has the best coverage area, but in terms of quality service, Cingular is actually #1 with less dropped calls on average in covered areas. My experience matches this. When I switched from Verizon to then AT&T Wireless, my dropped call rate went down from two drops per night to... well, I think I might have reached a double digit number last week. That's over the course of three or four years.

Part of the reason for this discrepancy is that Verizon's network is to spread out. They cover too much area, and as a result, don't cover any of it as well. I would much rather see a bunch of regional cellular providers with peering agreements instead of giant, nation-wide cellular providers. That is the best way to ensure the broadest, most consistent coverage. Of course, the cellular companies would want to find ways to charge a per-minute rate for it, which is why such a thing would never work. That's why we need to continue actively pushing cellular providers to move to flat-rate communication.

Re:We already have one

[stupidfoo]

Actually, no, I'm a Yankee.

Re:We already have one

[G-funk]

Can you tell me about the third party nokia file manager? I'm definitely interested in getting my hands on it.

Re:We already have one

[ncc74656]

I prefer "moible".

It sounds better :)

That sounds too much like "mohel." :-P

Re:We already have one

[Zhe Mappel]

That comment's going to get me through econ class today.

For your sake, friend, I hope it's being taught in Chinese.

Re:We already have one

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because it was asked in english, at an english speaking working place

Re:We already have one

[sbryant]

Well, the term comes from "handheld telephone", so its understandable where they got it from.

I've never heard the term used to mean a handjob either. A lot of Germans actually think that the word "handy" is English for a mobile phone, and it's funny watching them having confusing conversations with English speakers who have no idea what they're on about. The English word "handy" is "geschickt" or "griffbereit" in German, which of course has nothing to do with telephones.

The whole German "handy" thing stems from a stupid obsession that anything English (or English sounding) is cool - it actually results in very bad English that looks stupid to people who can speak English properly, and is unintelligible to others who don't speak English.

-- Steve

Re:We already have one

[It'sYerMam]

I guess that's why I hear German people say bullshit and fuck so often.. It was quite disturbing the first time, especially with the force they are spoken with!

Re:We already have one

[Down_in_the_Park]

No, no, we use these words so often, because we see all this american films in original language and without any beeping noise...

Example? Blue Velvet...Sin City... and every film with Bruce Willis :-)

Re:We already have one

[TheRaven64]

It's called FExplorer. It's a nice app, although the web site will leave you wanting to claw your eyes out...

Re:We already have one

[Fred_A]

ARTHUR: What?

GALAHAD: He says they've already got one!

They are stunned.

ARTHUR: Are you sure he's got one?

MAN: Oh yes. It's very nice

CUT TO BATTLEMENTS. THE TAUNTER (MAN) turns to some others.

MAN: I told him we already got one.

They all giggle.

ARTHUR: Well ... can we come up and have a look?

MAN: Of course not! You are English pigs.

Re:We already have one

[foamrotreturns]

The whole German "handy" thing stems from a stupid obsession that anything English (or English sounding) is cool - it actually results in very bad English that looks stupid to people who can speak English properly, and is unintelligible to others who don't speak English.Sounds like the motivation behind engrish.

Re:We already have one

[SeaFox]

How about we just call it a "phone"?

Since for so many people its the only one they have anyway.

Re:We already have one

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole German "handy" thing stems from a stupid obsession that anything English (or English sounding) is cool - it actually results in very bad English that looks stupid to people who can speak English properly, and is unintelligible to others who don't speak English.

Wikipedia even has an article about it - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Anglicism

Re:We already have one

[Doctor O]

I'm glad I could clear that up for you. I hope you didn't, the cleaning lady isn't paid for reading gossip magazines, you know.

Re:We already have one

[Doctor O]

What's also odd is the pronunciation of 'V' as 'W' (you'd expect german people to say W as V not the other way around) Maybe I'd have an explanation if I understood your statement. ;) Do you mean that when spelling out words people say W when it should be V or do you mean that they mispronounce the letter V (say as in 'vest' pronounced as 'west')? I've heard the former a lot, but that's because Germans tend to be slightly obsessed with "doubleyou" - they like to say it a lot. ;)

Re:We already have one

[Doctor O]

I guess that's why I hear German people say bullshit and fuck so often.. It was quite disturbing the first time, especially with the force they are spoken with! This is more of a cultural than a linguistic difference - swearing isn't as big a taboo as it is in the states. Therefore Germans just keep their natural swearing habit and use the English equivalents of their German swearwords. If you wonder about Germans saying bullshit and fuck a lot, you should listen to them in informal situations. ;)

Personally, I find the fake friendlyness of many Americans, like asking "how are you" without expecting an answer, shallow and sometimes even offensive, but I'm aware that this is a matter of personal taste and cultural background. I am pretty straightforward, and find it tiresome to deal with people who are unable to express disagreement without feeling guilty or justifying themselves. Here in Germany, if someone asks "how are you", he wants to know, and if he thinks I'm an asshole, he will tell me. I like it this way.

AC telling me he thinks I'm an asshole in 3... 2... 1...

Re:We already have one

[It'sYerMam]

I mean vest --> west. Or often, I hear german folks say "werry" instead of very. This is the basis of the German prince in Blackadder saying, "Sorry to inconwenience you."

Re:We already have one

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Germany, if someone asks "how are you", he wants to know, and if he thinks I'm an asshole, he will tell me.

Bullshit talking fucking asshole.

Re:We already have one

[Doctor O]

You know /. is dying if it takes the AC almost 32 hours to catch this troll invitation.

SOLUTION

[ImaNihilist]

They need to get the guy who came up with the phrase "Cyber Monday" to rename our wireless telecommunications system.

Re:SOLUTION

[scottschiller]

That would be "the National Retail Federation's Shop.org division", according to this Cyber Monday entry.

Re:SOLUTION

[Anonymous Coward]

that guy was probably a huge perv and frequents all the cybersex chats

really?

[geoffspear]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones

"it almost seems" to whom? Stand by a busy road sometime, and count the % of people driving past using their cell phones to make voice calls. Come and and tell me it seems like voice calls are the least-used function of phones.

I suspect the submitter just has no friends who would actually want to talk to him on a phone, because he keeps saying stupid things to them that are contradicted by a huge body of empirical evidence.

Re:really?

[Petronius.Scribe]

I wouldn't be standing too close to a busy road if a large percentage of drivers are talking on their cellphones.

Re:really?

[GIL_Dude]

Exactly!

I know in Singapore they are called "Hand phone" which seems weird because even my phone at home is used held in my hand. But whatever. Anyway, the concept that voice calls aren't used much anymore is total bunk.

Re:really?

[garcia]

I suspect the submitter just has no friends who would actually want to talk to him on a phone, because he keeps saying stupid things to them that are contradicted by a huge body of empirical evidence.

Or he's in a circle of friends or living in an area where that just isn't true. Take for example the *huge* number of people driving around in Central FL (where I was visiting this past week for the holiday) using mobile phones pressed to their ears. Where I currently live, it's far less people (empirically).

Personally, I *rarely* use my mobile's phone function. It's not because I don't have friends it's because I don't like using the phone (minutes--) and it's because 99% of people I talk to on a regular basis are available via SMS or AIM.

Re:really?

[blincoln]

I agree.

Slow down, Buck Rogers. There's still a lot of the US that aren't even using your space age wireless communication units yet, let alone something fancier built on the same technology.

Re:really?

[RedOregon]

Same in Korea. I don't think they were *ever* known as cell phones. Quite a trip to visit over there and see little 5 and 6 year old kids trucking around with a "hand phone" hanging on lanyards around their necks. Last time I was over there it was a little difficult to find a pay phone that took anything but calling cards!

Re:really?

[Viol8]

"and it's because 99% of people I talk to on a regular basis are available via SMS or AIM."

Not really "talk" is it? Never saw the attraction of SMS myself , just seems like a poor mans email with its pathetic 196 character limit and hopeless word entry system on a numeric keypad. Sure its useful to send directions or something so the other person has a written record but having a "conversation" using SMS is best left to socially inept tweenies and teens who can't actually come out with sentences of more than 3 words at a time anyway.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never saw the attraction of SMS myself

There are many plans where it's considerably cheaper to send an SMS than to make a call, fucktard.

Re:really?

[Txiasaeia]

Totally off-topic, I know, but here in Daegu there are coin pay phones right beside carded pay phones, including in prominent places downtown and throughout the entire subway system. It is a little creepy about how much cell phones have penetrated the market, and how most cellular plans give preference to people who primarily text than people who primarily use voice.

"Hand phones" make perfect sense to me.

Re:really?

[garcia]

My mobile doesn't have a character limit for SMS (it merges multiple longer ones together into one) and because unlimited SMS is included as part of my unlimited data plan, my minutes are far more precious.

Re:really?

[Viol8]

Duh , wonder why that is Booboo? Perhaps its because you can't say as much in them.
Learn gardening - grow yourself a brain.

Re:really?

[ady1]

I haven't read the article but he could be talking about rest of the world. I don't know about US but voice call being unused is true in parts of asia and europe and data use will only grow by time.

Re:really?

[drinkypoo]

There's not a hard 196 char limit. Some providers let you use 250 or so. The limit AFAIK is actually 160 characters (hard limit) but the messages can be joined back together. Probably only works for SMS sent between two phones on the same provider. I've often used SMS for medium-long conversations (ten or so messages each way) when I'm simply in a situation in which I cannot make a voice call, such as being in a theater or in a conference. I just set the phone to silent and it lights up when the message comes in. Quite handy.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

SMS is not cheaper when I've already paid for my monthly minutes. Why pay $0.10 to send a message ($0.20 for message and ack) when I can just use the minutes I've got. At this point I am just wasting money. There are a few circumstances when SMS makes sense, but not many.

Re:really?

[geoffspear]

The article makes no such claim about voice calls being the least used function of phones, so you don't even have the RTFA.

Besides, it's from Business Week, so you probably saved plenty of brain cells by not reading it.

Re:really?

[HolyMoto]

I 100% agree with this. Marketing and the press are making this huge push for data on phones, showing us grand depictions of watching live TV on our phones and keeping streaming stats and video and music. Problem is, services are not widely available, those handsets are not in the majority of the consumers hands, and the battery life is not capable of handeling what it could be used for. And the quality of such services is still in work. Simple data connections and SMS are wide, but even MMS is not cross carrier at this time. And like I really want to raise my already $70 bill another $70 for an unlimited data plan.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I suspect the submitter just has no friends who would actually want to talk to him on a phone, because he keeps saying stupid things to them that are contradicted by a huge body of empirical evidence."

Come one now, Christians have friends too

Re:really?

[Neko-kun]

Uhm... there's something called T9 on most phones...

It's predictive text input and it does the job fairly well although far from perfect since many words have the same keystrokes.
And with the inclusion of Bluetooth, programs that interface with it are quite convenient and infact, break up the messages into several sections if you go beyond the limit. Bluephone Elite is my favorite program for this since I could be in class taking notes and texting a friend without having to take out my phone to do so. Quite convinient in an area without a Wi-Fi signal...

But alas, most of the tweens don't know how to spell and all predictive text input programs depend on you being able to spell...

And SMS is very convenient when one is unable to talk and the best part about it being a poor man's email is that you don't have to put up with any spam other than the occasional carrier SMS ad which one can opt-out of anyway.

Re:really?

[spwolfx]

you are correct... if anything, latest data shows failure of smart phones. Wimax, skype are just announced for mobile phones, and they still use cells btw.

some headlines make you wonder. :-).

Re:really?

[jawtheshark]

Probably only works for SMS sent between two phones on the same provider.

Nah, it works over different providers and even internationally. Or otherwhise, I must have been dreaming sending +500 char SMSes to Germany, France and Belgium.

Re:really?

[jawtheshark]

T9 is only useful if you live in a single language country and if your languages are supported. I regulary sent messages in Dutch, French, German, English and even an odd language called "Luxembourgish". Unless I switch the T9 language on my phone for each SMS I want to send, it's completely useless to me. Luxembourgish doesn't have a T9 library, so for that one I have to disable it anyway.

Typing SMSes without T9 isn't all that hard with a bit training ;-)

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

u cant count the %... its calculated....

Re:really?

[idugcoal]

Your comment could fit in a text message. You seem to be communicating. Just a thought.

Re:really?

[Vellmont]

Not really "talk" is it?

That's exactly the point, actually.

just seems like a poor mans email with its pathetic 196 character limit and hopeless word entry system on a numeric keypad.

No, it's MOBILE email. The 196 character limit is kind of stupid, I'll agree. I find SMS messages very usefull for sending short messages that don't require a full conversation, or an immediate reply. Asking someone if they want to go out for lunch, when they'll be home, etc. It's a more polite way to communicate when you don't want to interrupt someone for just a quick question.

using SMS is best left to socially inept tweenies and teens who can't actually come out with sentences of more than 3 words at a time anyway

Well, I think part of the problem is just that most of the people who actually know how to send an SMS message, or have their cell phone with them at all times are the tweenies. I'm far from the tweenie, but SMS is of limited use to me mostly because a lot of the people I know won't know how to send a reply, or just don't carry their phone with them.

Re:really?

[parkrrrr]

I've often used SMS for medium-long conversations (ten or so messages each way) when I'm simply in a situation in which I cannot make a voice call, such as being in a theater or in a conference. I just set the phone to silent and it lights up when the message comes in. Quite handy.

The dark-acclimated people in the row behind you most emphatically do not agree. Keep it in your pants, or leave the theater. You weren't watching the movie anyway.

Re:really?

[drinkypoo]

The dark-acclimated people in the row behind you most emphatically do not agree

The dark-acclimated people in the row behind me can't see my screen or substantial light from it anyway since my phone is in my lap and I'm [typically] wearing all black clothing, so they can fuck off, and you along with them. By the way, that's light bouncing off the projection screen and striking their retinas. Have a nice day.

Re:really?

[siriuskase]

Unfortunately, that is the only kind of road that seems to exist around here.

Re:really?

[Neko-kun]

Ah yes, the benefits of living in a country dominated by English and Spanish is that T9 is available in both English and Spanish :D

But even if I wanted to send one in japanese, I couldn't since the carrier itself doesn't support japanese characters -_-;

Well, like the saying goes, 'to each their own'

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The text cheaper than voice bit makes sense though. How hard is it to send ~200 bytes of a text message as compared to a voice signal? I find it a tad ridiculous that without a text plan (which start at 300 messages for $5) text messages cost me $.15 each. Meanwhile, without a data plan 1KB of data transmitted is $.03. 1/5th the size for 5x the price. It works out that 1MB of data without a plan is $30, yet unlimited data is $25 a month, including free streaming TV on the phone.

Re:really?

[aoeuid]

SMS is not cheaper when I've already paid for my monthly minutes. Why pay $0.10 to send a message ($0.20 for message and ack) when I can just use the minutes I've got. At this point I am just wasting money.

It depends where you are. Here in Mexico, most people (non-corporate users) seem to be using the prepaid phone plan. It costs about 40 cents / minute to make a voice call, 10 cents to send a 360 character SMS message, and 20 cents to send a MMS message which can be very long. For these people, it is much more economical to send an SMS or MMS message than to make a voice call.

Also, because not every home here has a 24/7 broadband Internet connection, or even a computer, cell phones do serve more as portable messaging units than as "phones" for many people here. I do realize that in Canada or USA sending text messages seems a little silly when almost everyone is on a plan, but in other parts of the world prepay is much more common and with prepay it is often cheaper to send a message since you aren't using minutes that you have to use up anyway.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth, I certainly both notice and am annoyed by people using backlighted cell phones in theaters. (I've never noticed whether or not they are wearing all-black clothing; do people really plan their outfit to support this habit?) If the movie is one which demands one's full attention(as opposed to "popcorn" movies - there's nothing wrong with such movies and I do watch them myself, but I find it useful to make a distinction here purely for the purposes of cinema etiquette), I find these lights needlessly distracting(the less irrelevant light striking my retinas, the easier it is to focus on the relevant light, which I've always presumed was the reason why it's dark in theaters in the first place).

Perhaps I'm more sensitive to light than you, but I hardly think it's very polite to ask me to "fuck off" anyway. Have a nice day, but please be aware that the problem the GP was mentioning(in rather blunt terms) really does exist - people are annoyed by this.

Re:really?

[jawtheshark]

T9 libraries are available in Dutch, English, French and German. That's not the problem. Just imagine, I'd want to message a German friend and then a French friend. I'd be switching T9 languages all the time, and changing the T9 language usually is somewhere in the phone config. That's the real problem, not the fact that the libraries aren't there. (Except for that odd exception, I mentioned, but one can work around that since most people that know that language at least know French and German)

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The dark-acclimated people in the row behind me can't see my screen or substantial light from it anyway since my phone is in my lap and I'm [typically] wearing all black clothing, so they can fuck off..."

If you were the fellow in front of me at "The Prestige" I saw your cell phone quite clearly and it was very distracting. If your life is so important that you have to take that call, perhaps you should hire someone to watch the movie for you.

Re:really?

[drinkypoo]

(I've never noticed whether or not they are wearing all-black clothing; do people really plan their outfit to support this habit?)

No, but I just tend to wear a lot of black. I look good in it. :P

Perhaps I'm more sensitive to light than you, but I hardly think it's very polite to ask me to "fuck off" anyway.

If I'm bothering you, tell me, and I'll do something about it. But when someone (who wasn't even you, right?) is making assumptions about how I comport myself, they can fuck off and die. Immediately. The world doesn't need them, and neither do I.

I'm actually more sensitive to light than anyone I know, and have better distance vision in the bargain. (My close-up vision is starting to slide, alas.)

Have a nice day, but please be aware that the problem the GP was mentioning(in rather blunt terms) really does exist - people are annoyed by this.

That's because most people do behave like an asshat when they use their mobile in public. Personally I find the people walking down the street yelling at their phone annoying when I pass them, because I have to stop my conversation with the person I'm walking next to in order to accommodate them. But when I'm in a theater with my cellphone, I have it on vibrate (or silent if I'm not expecting communication from the outside world) and I don't hold it up in the air for the world to see while I look at the display to see WTF is going on. It is possible to use a mobile phone in a responsible manner, in almost any surroundings.

My ire was for the person who wrote the comment, not you, unless you're a person who would give me shit for using my mobile in such a fashion that it doesn't bother other people. Again, if it's sitting way down on my lap, and I'm not wearing highly reflective clothing, then the only people who are even in a position to notice it are the people to my immediate left and right. If they're not with me, and they're looking at my lap, perhaps they need to look somewhere else, as I am not on the market.

Re:really?

[Viol8]

>Uhm... there's something called T9 on most phones...

*hollow laugh*

Yeah , isn't it great. Not. At most it gets 80% correct and having to go back and redo the word makes it more painful than just typing it all in manually in the first place. Predictive text is a joke that should've been left in the lab.

Re:really?

[tehcyder]

I suspect the submitter just has no friends who would actually want to talk to him on a phone, because he keeps saying stupid things to them that are contradicted by a huge body of empirical evidence.

Oh, the irony of seeing this as an insult on slashdot...

source please

[shawn(at)fsu]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones
I would like to see the numbers for this assertion.

Re:source please

[Red Flayer]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones

I would like to see the numbers for this assertion.

You want numbers for the assertion? How about one person subjectively noted that something almost seems a certain way? Why ask for figures when the statement is obviously just meant to stimulate discussion?

I, for one, would like to see more prevalent use of critical reading skills.

Re:source please

[Anonymous Coward]

You would need to wipe the feces from it before you read it considering it came directly from the submitters ass.

Re:source please

[Kohath]

I, for one, would like to see more prevalent use of critical reading skills.

On that note, I'd like to assert that the author of this piece almost seems to be living in a fantasy world. Apparently, they have WiMax phones there.

Re:source please

[brarrr]

welcome to slashdot, where even the articles are trolls.

Re:source please

[ewieling]

I believe you can get those numbers from any Cell/Wireless/whatever provider's marketing department.

Re:source please

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to see the numbers for this assertion.

2, 3, 7 and of course 42.

Re:source please

[toetagger1]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones
I would like to see the numbers for this assertion.

I too want to see numbers! But he said that it seems like, which is different than making an assertion, as you state.

Re:source please

[Dun Malg]

I too want to see numbers! But he said that it seems like, which is different than making an assertion, as you state.

This is true, but it's really just a semantic trick for making a false assertion sound like empirical observation without actually claiming anything at all.

No Name Change

[Anonymous Coward]

No name change needed. We still use that picture of that cylinder for a hard drive, right? Even though hard drives havent looked like that in years.

But it's got Myspace Mobile!

[Have Blue]

I'm going to keep calling them phones just to give the metaphorical finger to those Helio ads. YES IT IS A GODDAMN PHONE.

Re:But it's got Myspace Mobile!

[bladesjester]

I hate those ads. It makes me want to beat the person who came up with them senseless.

they're desperately screaming "oh, look at us. we're different!" but this makes sense from a company that has chosen to offer MySpace mobile right out of the box.

Let it be an homage

[davidwr]

It will be a lovely story to tell your grandchildren
"Grandpa, why is this called a cell phone?"

As long as the phones can do cellular let them keep the name. Even when they can't, if the function is similar, let them keep the name.

I mean, we still call pencil leads "leads" right?

Re:Let it be an homage

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this "pencil" you speak of?

Can you back up the assumption....

[murph]

that voice is the least-used?

Re:Can you back up the assumption....

[repetty]

> ...that voice is the least-used?

Ouch. Yeah, creditbility hit there.

How vacuous

[postbigbang]

They still work by using cells. Americans and a few others call them cell phones, which is appropriate, even when they use them in WiFi or WiMax mode (which are cell-based, after all). The rest of the world calls them everything from mobiles to 'handys' (in Germany).

The name isn't as important as the functionality. And texting is what racks up revenue; there's no data that supports that texting minutes of use exceed voice use. I've been watching for that data for a long time, and so far, it's only texting revenue that's becoming higher in terms of minutes 'online' than voice.

Re:How vacuous

[Andy Dodd]

Yeah. Someone (read: the article submitter) clearly fell victim to Sprint's "The clear alternative to cellular" marketing BS.

"The clear alternative to cellular" translates in Sprint's case to "The clear alternative to ourselves" because their system was still cellular (simply digital instead of analog).

Voice, data, whatever - It still fundamentally relies on breaking up a service area into small cells to increase capacity. Heck, municipal multi-accesspoint WiFi networks take the "cellular" approach to whole new levels, given the incredibly small coverage areas of most WiFi access points.

One can always argue the definition of "small" as far as cells go, but it's usually pretty clear when compared to traditional broadcast TV/radio systems or "public service" VHF/UHF systems which have coverage areas of miles even in densely populated areas.

Re:How vacuous

[Aladrin]

Exactly. If the author had half a brain, he'd be pushing to change the 'phone' moniker, instead of 'cellular'... I seriously doubt anyone is willing to go for 'cellular multifunctional utility device'.

And despite what he thinks, most people DO still use their phones as phones. It's the vocal minority that use them as something else. You know, the ones who are dissatisfied with what their phone can do. Those who use them as simply phones don't have any complaints about them to complain about.

Re:How vacuous

[postbigbang]

I have no issues with anyone that wants to text, watch movies, listen to MP3s, or use their phone as an eating utensil.

In the same way that there are laptops, notebooks, tablets, sub-mini PCs, and so on, I'll presume that the natural tendency of language to embue definition will continue. Sloth dictates that any combination of more than two words-- even compounded-- is unlikely to become popular and therefore succeed.

It was a phone, contrasted by VoIP phone or analog phone. There are wired and wireless phones. There are mobiles, cells, and so on. No device has re-anchored speech sufficiently to alter these basic terms-- yet. The iPod came close, as it seems to have defined a genre of consumer electronics devices. But it's unlikely to become like kleenex/Kleenex, or another trademark now rendered generic. Because of that, and the fact that the entire class of devices has no useful term other than MP3 player (which is a highly constrained term), the push behind the crest of success of the iPod is likely to continue-- it has odd mindshare. As a friend of mine asked me the other day, WTF is a Zune?

Re:How vacuous

[GungaDan]

But we geeks do love acronyms. I, for one, welcome your new C-MUD naming convention.

Re:How vacuous

[Lemmy Caution]

Language often becomes vestigial. People still talk about "dialing" numbers - when was the last time most people have actually "dialed" anything?

Re:How vacuous

[demi]

Hey, we still "drive" our cars when there's no team to whip. Steering, sure, but not driving.

Re:How vacuous

[curunir]

The problem with calling devices "cellular", whether or not it is apt, is that it's a bad name. When naming something you want to describe its function, not its implementation. "Mobile Phone" is a much better name since it describes how the phone is used rather than how that use is achieved. That way, you can have cellular mobile phone, satellite mobile phone and even some-unknown-future-technology mobile phone. The "mobile phone" part never changes even when the underlying technology does.

Re:How vacuous

[postbigbang]

The underlying concept, be it mobile or cellular hasn't and won't change.

WiFi exists in cells, as does GSM and CDMA. WiMax has both a point-multi-point approach, or point-point. Both exist in cells, logically, physically, and electrically. This ISO/OSI Layer 1-2 approach isn't going to really change for the forseeable future. When it does, I expect another term might be both appropriate and natural.

Mobiles, a term my UK and Asian friends use, is apt. I use it, too, although I'm an American. My German friends use 'handys' as their term. All three are reasonably correct in usage, and intent.

Cellular as a term is entirely apt, and a good name. My truck is when you get some Starbucks-hopped-up marketing people together to try and change things to bend a market towards them, first semantically, then perhaps, genuinely. Fie on that.

A simple answer

[charlesbakerharris]

Say "cell phone" to someone, and they'll have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about. The current name is sufficient - no need to change it. Language is intended to convey information, not to be perfectly consistent.

Overthinking FTL.

Re:A simple answer

[pilgrim23]

"Your phone is ringing" -the term refers to an earlier era but we still use it..

Re:A simple answer

[gandreas]

And let's not forget about how you "dial a number".
Or how you can't get through if it is "off the hook"
Or how when you're done, you "hang up" (as in hang the headset back up on the hook)

Re:A simple answer

[58797A7A79]

I agree. Even something as simple as the phrase "When was the last time you upgraded your wireless phone?" will get you blank looks, but if you ask "When was the last time you upgraded your cell phone?", everyone will understand. I'm almost tempted to use the phrase "wireless communication device" and see what kind of reactions I can get.

Re:A simple answer

[teslar]

Say "cell phone" to someone, and they'll have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about.

Only if that someone is American.

Re:A simple answer

[charlesbakerharris]

Only if that someone is American.

Erm, not really. People who aren't American may use a different term for it themselves, but they're not so oblivious as not to know what that phrase means, in my experience. That's like saying Americans won't understand what a "loo" is because they're not British.

Re:A simple answer

[Graabein]

Say "cell phone" to someone, and they'll have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about. The current name is sufficient - no need to change it. Language is intended to convey information, not to be perfectly consistent.

Good point. There's only one problem: To someone who's not familiar with the technology behind these radio networks, what meaning exactly would he be able to deduce from the name "cell phone"? A telephone for use by prison inmates?

The name only works today because it has become colloquial and ubiquitous (in the US). Outside of the tech community the name has little semantic payload value.

All IMHO, of course.

Re:A simple answer

[charlesbakerharris]

Deducing literal meanings from colloquial phrases is not something that I see as all that commonly used.

the UK

[VJ42]

Here in the UK, it's never been called a "cell phone", everyone I know has always called it a "mobile phone", or even just a "mobile", anyway, so no need for a name change this side of the Atlantic.

Re:the UK

[KokorHekkus]

Here in Sweden we also call it "the mobile" (i.e. "mobilen" in Swedish). But a lot of the time it's just "the phone" if the listener can figure out if which phone you're talking about.

Re:the UK

[njko]

i like the Italian name 'Telefonino' but mobile phone its accurate

Re:the UK

[MythMoth]

I'd say it's almost becoming more common to refer to the "phone" and use the retronym of "landline" for a wired telephone.

Re:the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

in Soviet Russia, cell phone calls YOU!

Re:the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

In Portugal it's a "telemóvel" ("telefone" is telephone, "móvel" is mobile), but most people now-a-days say just "móvel" or "telelé", which is a play on words of "telemóvel" and the sound it makes when it rings. However, people use just "telefone" (telephone) to mean mobile telephone, and specifically say "fixo" (fixed) when referring to a landline, because they're fast becoming obsolete, many people are starting to rely only on mobiles or VoIP for their telephony needs (I don't live in Portugal anymore, moved to Spain in 2004, but I haven't had a landline since 2001, not there and not here either. My folks cancelled their landline last year too, and now we (plus my sister that lives 500km away from them) talk almost everyday by VoIP)

Ah, yes, in Spain it's also called a "móvil", a mobile.

I've got it!

[Flendon]

Lets call them Smartphones!

Re:I've got it!

[kj_in_ottawa]

I'm only willing to call a device a smartphone if it has an internal mechanism that prevents it's use by morons.

Re:I've got it!

[RAMMS EIN]

``Lets call them Smartphones!''

Cell phones...smartphones...you Americans just get yourselves into trouble by picking the wrong words. In Europe, we call them mobile phones (as in, phones that you take with you), and dumb phones (as in, that dumb phone crashed again!).

Cell is fine

[Ritchie70]

As far as I'm concerned, "cell" is fine.

And unlikely to change, anyhow. I mean, I don't know about you, but I still "dial" my phone.

When's the last time you saw a phone that really applied to? (Aside from your grandma's house.)

Auugghhh the poorly used cliches/catch phrases...

[aicrules]

...they are killing me!!! It started in the summary, "Is it time for a new name, or is a rose by any other name still as sweet?" and ended in the article's final section titled "Wired is Tired"

My ultra mobile eyes are bleeeeeeeding...

This is one of those cases

[zappepcs]

of a name being more than just a name, like Kleenex facial tissues. 'Give me a Kleenex' or in England, they 'Hoover' the carpets. Cell phone will be around in the English language for a very long time... that is just how language works. They tried to give two-way pagers names other than pager. It didn't work because people just didn't understand what it was till you called it a pager.

The cellular network configuration is still in use, so the name is still appropriate. When all that changes, maybe there will be another name, but the common usage of cell phone will stick around still.

Re:This is one of those cases

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cell phone will be around in the English language for a very long time... t" ...and we will continue to "dial" them.

Those of us with girlfriends

[WormholeFiend]

know that our "cell phone" is not so much a communication device as it is an electronic leash.

Re:Those of us with girlfriends

[BCW2]

And if she becomes a wife? The leash just gets shorter!

Know how to cure a nymphomaniac? Marry her!

Re:Those of us with girlfriends

[PFI_Optix]

Know how to cure a nymphomaniac? Marry her!

I tried, it didn't work :(

So I got her pregnant. Nope, that didn't work.

Now she's pregnant again and still always wanting some. What's Plan C???

Re:Those of us with girlfriends

[Palshife]

The fact that you had a plan A and B frightens and confuses me. My advice is to sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride!

Re:Those of us with girlfriends

[Shadow99_1]

Erm... Bottle some of her sex drive and sell it? I know my SO could use a bit more interest in sex sometimes...

Which is awfully funny because once I do talk her into sex she really enjoys it... You'd think soem instinct would cause enjoyable activities to be more common... Anyways...

Re:Those of us with girlfriends

[bladesjester]

I honestly want to know what's so bad about having a partner who honestly enjoys sex.

All of mine have (I'm not married. I was close once, but sometimes things happen) and I view it as a positive thing. Now, if that's the only thing they enjoy, then yes, that's not good, but most people have other things that they like to do as well.

Re:Those of us with girlfriends

[OneSmartFellow]

What's Plan C???

Invite me around, I seem to cure all women of their sex drive within minutes !

Re:Those of us with girlfriends

[Anonymous Coward]

So its relevant to all two of us here?

ok... one.

Re:Those of us with girlfriends

[Anonymous Coward]

And if she becomes a wife? The leash just gets shorter!

Now with GPS systems being integrated into phones, it's not only an electronic leash, but an electrified fence. Sort of like those "invisible fences" people buy for their dogs.

Wander too close to a bar or your buddy's place... ZAP!

However women (at least in my experience) have a way around this... turn the phone off.

"Oh sorry sweetie, my battery must have died..."

Re:Those of us with girlfriends

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

you mean you make her lady parts dry up and fall off?

Re:Those of us with girlfriends

[Anonymous Coward]

Most common statement:

      That's was good. We should do that more often!

Yes, that's what I keep telling her! :-)

Who cares what it's called?

[91degrees]

I still call a motion picture a "film", even if it's shot on digital. They still call programmes on the radio "shows" even though they show nothing. Aircraft speed is measured in knots even thugh nobdy measures it by throwing a log attached to a rope overboard. People will use a word that has meaning to the person they're talking to. If the meaning changes, it will change.

Re:Who cares what it's called?

[Kelson]

They still call programmes on the radio "shows" even though they show nothing.

And they still call it Internet Radio when it's not transmitted via radio waves.

Appropriate icon

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of you have actually "dialed" a phone (and I don't mean pushing buttons)? Yet we still call it that...

Language works in strange ways.

Re:Appropriate icon

[PFI_Optix]

It will be a sad day when the POTS stops accepting pulse dialing.

Re:Appropriate icon

[bladesjester]

How many of you have actually "dialed" a phone (and I don't mean pushing buttons)?
The last rotary phone I had died around 1994 or so. Heck, the town I grew up in didn't get tone dialing until pretty late in the game and neither did a lot of the smaller towns in the country.

Given that, I'd say there are a fair number of us that have dialed a phone since, despite how it seems at times, not all of us are under 14.

Re:Appropriate icon

[famebait]

It will be a sad day when the POTS stops accepting pulse dialing.

On the bright side, the dolphins might then finally develop proper speech in stead of that annoying clicking.

Re:Appropriate icon

[schnikies79]

we have a rotary phone in the basement that is still used. it's from the 60's i think.

As a linguist...

[Half-pint HAL]

As a linguist, I always found the term cellphone quite curious.

From the start, it seemed unlikely to catch on, as the cell bit was meaningless to anyone but a techy or geek. The UK term seems far more meaningful to the average user: mobile phone.

So why did cellphone catch on? I'm forced to assume that it's because it sounds like something out of a sci-fi flick.

So:

If the average user doesn't associate cellphone with a particular technology, and the change in technology is seamless and transparent (and if it isn't, take-up will be very slow), then to the people that matter -- average Joe and average Jo -- there won't be any need for a new name.

HAL.

Re:As a linguist...

[zappepcs]

The term cell phone probably caught on because 'Cellular One' was one of the biggest cell phone companies way back when they were still the size of a brick.

Re:As a linguist...

[Khomar]

Not to mention that "cellphone" rolls off the tongue much faster and easier than "mobile phone" (even in the shortened form -- cell vs mobile). I think it is a combination of the two.

Re:As a linguist...

[Headcase88]

I would argue that just the fact that "cell" is one punchy syllable is the biggest reason.

Re:As a linguist...

[famebait]

So why did cellphone catch on?

Because Americans love their big, glitzy, technical or formal-sounding words. Nowhere else, for example, do people say "vehicle" in everyday talk when they obviously just mean "car". I presume this is because they actually find them impressive, or hope that others will. Most other places it just makes people cringe.

Re:As a linguist...

[hauntingthunder]

Cellphone vs Mobile

Yeh struick me as odd that America uses a non obvious name for a Mobile maybe a NIH syndrome. Or just poor marketing by the Incumbants.

Re:As a linguist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some educated guesses:

- There was likely a need to differentiate cellular phones from mobile phones. Trunced radio that allowed mobile phone calls had been around for some time. The thing that made cellular different is that cellular did hand-off between cells. Before this you could make wireless, mobile calls by connecting to localized towers, but when you went out of range of the connecting tower you'd have to initiate a reconnect. Everything was there except hand-off.

- the first users were probably technical people so jargon originated from this group. When Motorola made the first cell phone call to its competitor AT&T it was probably already called cellular telephony to the engineers who invented the system.

- The usage is regional. In the US, where cellular was invented, it is called the cell phone. The usage probably spread before the marketers got hold of the name and adopted more consumer friendly terms. In the UK, its a mobile phone. In the Philipines, according to my Filipino in-laws, all cell phones were called Motorolas sort of like Kleenex in the US or Hoovers in the UK. (I doubt this is still true.)

- Personally, I don't think the term cell phone will be superceded until there is a need to differentiate a new technology from the current cellular network. The article suggest de-emphasizing that its a phone, so "smart-phone" seems silly. Maybe just "cell" or "mobile" as is often used already. But I think that still conjures the image of a phone. Likewise, its just assumed now that all computers are networked, so maybe the emphasis should be that its a mobile computer instead of a phone at all. Maybe hand-held or if they become desktop CPU replacements maybe something like PPU (portable processing unit) which has just the right corporate suit jargon speak and actually makes a lot of sense. Use it on the go with a limited UI, or just plug in to the docking station and use like a regular PC.

- Of course every new wireless technology will probably still use the concept of hand-off between cells, so cellular will probably still be technically correct. But when the network is ubiquitous, its structure becomes unimportant to the laymen.

Re:As a linguist...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good that they pronounce "cell" correctly.
They cannot seem to say "mobile" and instead say "mobil", which is a little odd.
I'm not sure if they can say "bile" or maybe they shorten that also to "bil".

Re:As a linguist...

[LWATCDR]

My guess is that it was to distinguish them for the mobile phones of the time. Back in the 70s mobile phones where radios installed in cars. You would call the mobile operator and they would place the call for you. They where very expensive and not very phone like. The first cell phones where sold to the same people that used mobile phones so they had to come put with some way to differentiate their product. So the "Cell" phone was born.
In the US they will probably be called Cells for a very long time.

Re:As a linguist...

[Vellmont]

I actually think there's a reason for this, at least in the US. Before Cellular phones there were car-phones for the ultra-rich. They didn't use a cellular system, and thus there was a very small limit on the number of calls that could be placed at the same time (something like 23). Cellular service wasn't established commercially in the US until 1982. The companies selling the service probbably wanted to distinguish cellular service from the old car/briefcase phones (since I'm guessing cellular service was a LOT cheaper), so they came up with a new name.

Re:As a linguist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in BC more often than not I hear simply "cell" being used. Usually not "cellphone" and certainly not "mobile" or "mobile phone." Even though 98% of everyone doesn't know what the cell means, it probably stuck because of what the other guy said: one catchy syllable.

Re:As a linguist...

[camperdave]

"Cell", or more particularly "Cellular" was not exactly meaningless. When these devices were introduced, there was lots of broad overview information floating around describing what cells were, and how they worked, especially if you were actually buying one. People had to be educated about roaming, and coverage area maps were frequently shown as a hexagonal grid overlying the city.

Add to that the points mentioned previously ("cell phone" is easier to say than "mobile phone", because it has less syllables, and has no vocal stops; and because the term "mobile phone" was already being used in North America when cell phones hit the market.)

Re:As a linguist...

[Anonymous Coward]

"vehicle" is a catch all term for a transportation machine. It includes, cars, vans, trucks, motorcycles, etc... That can be used generically or when refering to a group of vehicles of differing types.

Or do you call your vans and trucks cars?

Re:As a linguist...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good that they pronounce "cell" correctly.

        But we can say "asshole" just fine.

        Asshole.

Re:As a linguist...

[DerekLyons]

As a linguist, I always found the term cellphone quite curious.
 
From the start, it seemed unlikely to catch on, as the cell bit was meaningless to anyone but a techy or geek. The UK term seems far more meaningful to the average user: mobile phone.
 
So why did cellphone catch on? I'm forced to assume that it's because it sounds like something out of a sci-fi flick.

Here (in the US), before there were cell phones, there were mobile phones - big ass clunky things that were typically mounted in cars. Then there were mobile handsets - big ass clunky things that you carried around your house. The term cell phone arose to differentiate between these clunky beasts, and the rapidly shrinking phones you could actually reasonably carry on your person. (The term 'portable' also had a brief run - but it was, I suspect, poisoned by association with the 'portable' computers of the mid to late 80's.) The switch occurred about the time these (cell phones) became ubiquitous, not only on the Coasts but in flyover land.
 
Fankly I'm surprised that a linquist would a) find a difference between US and UK usage unusual and, b) wouldn't bother to do the slightest research on something he finds 'curious'.

Re:As a linguist...

[ifchairscouldtalk]

As a linguist, I always found the term cellphone quite curious.As a layman, I have always found the term self-phone quite appropriate. What's wrong with it?
What's wrong with you people? =)

Re:As a linguist...

[Kelson]

The cell-phone vs. mobile divide reminds me of "radio" vs. "wireless." It's another case where, initially, at least, the Americans went with the implementation and the British went with the functionality. Though this may just be an invalid impression I got from watching too many movies set in the early 20th century.

Re:As a linguist...

[AK Marc]

Well, there were radiophones. These may have been mobile (sometimes fixed) and were wireless. They were not cellular in nature. There would be specific point-to-point antennas set up for some customers, and areas of the ocean would be covered with one antenna. It would give a regular land-line that was re-broadcast over wireless with no hand-off or overlapping coverage. These were mobile, wireless, and all sorts of terms. However the name "radiophone" stuck for those. Then there were the cordless. They were the same as the regular phones, only without a cord from the base to the handset. "Cordless" stuck for those. Then we had cellular. Since we have the precident of radiophones being described by their technology, and multiple "mobile" phone solutions, they were identified by the one feature unique to them. They were operated off an overlapping network of transmitter stations. These "cells" came to give the name to the new phones.

If the average user doesn't associate cellphone with a particular technology, and the change in technology is seamless and transparent (and if it isn't, take-up will be very slow), then to the people that matter -- average Joe and average Jo -- there won't be any need for a new name.

All wireless solutions to replace cell phones are cellular in nature, including the digital cellular services that claim they are better than "cellular".

Re:As a linguist...

[famebait]

I was talking about "when they obviously just mean car".

Re:As a linguist...

[Half-pint HAL]

Fankly I'm surprised that a linquist would a) find a difference between US and UK usage unusual and,

Now, I did not say that I found the fact that there was a difference curious - I didn't say I found it curious that the US term was not the same as the UK. I just said I found it curious that the US term was so technical.

b) wouldn't bother to do the slightest research on something he finds 'curious'.

Maybe when I've finished my second degree, given up teaching English, stopped working in IT and completed my dictionary I'll have time to research the million-and-one little curiosities of everyday language....

HAL.

Re:As a linguist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's the thing.. in the US, there's be two reasons to not call cell phones mobile telephones...

          1) We had portable phones already so the name would be confusing with that.. (these are the ones that have like a 500-1000 foot range, communicating with a base in your house.) Having a mobile phone and a portable phone could be confusing. But, the big reason...

          2) The US had mobile telephones already. "MTS" (Mobile Telephone System) was introduced in the 1940's, and used through the 80's. It was quite a different beast than cellular.. The phone would transmit at like 50-100 watts, and calls were all operator-assisted. Later on, "IMTS" (improved mobile telephone service) allowed direct-dial. But, you'd still have like 1 big site covering a whole city with maybe 13 channels to handle calls. This service and cellular both ran through the 1980s (although, according to Wikipedia a few places still have IMTS today..wow.) So calling a cell phone a mobile phone back then would've made people think you have the old-style phone.. and I guess the "more modern" name stuck 8-).

Why?

[blamanj]

We still "dial", don't we?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oblig Colbert:
Don't touch that dial America! And if your TV still has a dial, get a new TV!

Re:Why?

[Inyu]

We do not dial anymore, we TYPE! And there is already a good word in use - COMMUNICATOR. ("Dial" is defined as "a disc on a telephone that is rotated a fixed distance for each number called")

Re:Why?

[corychristison]

Really? I hold a button, speak the name of whom I wish to speak to and it will [try to] connect to the person of whose name I spoke. ;-)

Re:Why?

[Aceticon]

I hereby suggest that the OP spends a couple of months using the "right" words for mobile phones.

For example: He will "punch people's phone numbers" in his "networked mobile communication device".

Sure, people will start avoiding him, but at least he will have that warm fuzzy feeling of using the "right" words ...

Wanna kill your cell phone?

[Dan Yocum]

Give it to Hemos... instant cell phone bath, guaranteed dead cell phone. ;-)

voice is the least used feature?

[friolator]

So are all those people walking down the street with phones to their heads using some kind of new wireless protocol to download direct-to-brain? I think it's a bit of a stretch to assert that "Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones," without some serious numbers as back up. VOIP penetration on mobile phones just isn't that high yet.

...then again, I'm one of those curmudgeons who thinks that a phone's primary purpose should be, well, a phone. Occasional text messaging is ok, as is the odd flight tracking or score checking session, but other than that i just want to be able to talk on my phone with a minimum of fuss. that's harder and harder to do these days.

Re:voice is the least used feature?

[aadvancedGIR]

Of course, there are a couple stupid people who pretend to be geeks because they use a 56kb/s phone instead of a cheaper full speed ADSL/cable to surf the net. Maybe the author is one of those morons.

Years ago, I was working for a cell phone manufacturer and when we sold our first affordable cameraphone, several person I know bought one, but when I asked them, they all told me they almost never used the camera after the first few days.

A Better Name

[scottschiller]

Whatever name means, "doesn't drop calls, provides good coverage and sound quality" - I want them to be named after that.

Re:A Better Name

[ThomsonsPier]

The first manufacturer who comes up with a name like that will be sued off the planet for false advertising. Besides, mobiles (as we call them) are still powered by a cell, aren't they?

Re:A Better Name

[eighty4]

the power cell isn't why cellphones are called cellphones. it says that right in the summary. :|

Re:A Better Name

[Dun Malg]

The first manufacturer who comes up with a name like that will be sued off the planet for false advertising. Besides, mobiles (as we call them) are still powered by a cell, aren't they?

"Cell" is short for "cellular", which refers to the use of multiple short range antennas with overlapping coverage, not the power source.

Re:A Better Name

[Monkeys with Guns]

I think you missed his point. Even if you take the cellular out of cell phones, you can still call them cell phones because there is still a cell involved. Of course, by that reasoning, any portable telephony device would qualify.

Re:A Better Name

[Dun Malg]

I think you missed his point. Even if you take the cellular out of cell phones, you can still call them cell phones because there is still a cell involved. Of course, by that reasoning, any portable telephony device would qualify.

Yeah, that's pretty silly. Nobody really acknowledges the individual "cells" in a battery anymore unless they're engineers anyway. I'm afraid pushing to shift the meaning of "cell" that direction is going to go over as well as a man with a PhD in English Literature standing up when someone shouts "is there a doctor in the house?"

Re:A Better Name

[cayenne8]

"the power cell isn't why cellphones are called cellphones. it says that right in the summary"

The think I found most interesting, is the assertation that voice over cell phone is the least thing used...that wifi and other stuff is used more on the phone???

I just have a hard time believing that...I do a little picture mail, etc...when in an environment where talking is about impossible (loud bar), but, really....I use the phone to talk on 99% of the time, I find it hard to imagine that isn't still the primary mode of use for cell phones.

Re:A Better Name

[TeknoHog]

Besides, mobiles (as we call them) are still powered by a cell, aren't they?

With the power consumption figures of PS3, I sure hope not.

Re:A Better Name

[rtyall]

Yeah, that's pretty silly. Nobody really acknowledges the individual "cells" in a battery anymore unless they're engineers anyway. I'm afraid pushing to shift the meaning of "cell" that direction is going to go over as well as a man with a PhD in English Literature standing up when someone shouts "is there a doctor in the house?"Funny you should say that, I have a friend who got a doctorate in quantum physics just in case that scenario arose.
Of course, he does use his qualification for more than just jokes nowadays.

Re:A Better Name

[pluther]

I use the phone to talk on 99% of the time, I find it hard to imagine that isn't still the primary mode of use for cell phones.

You're not 14.

Seriously, though, it seems the younger a person is, the less they use their phone for voice. Which is a major change from when I was 14.

Of course, back then, telephones didn't doanything besides voice.

They also were generally only found inside buildings or phone booths (remember those?), and attached to the wall with cords.

Re:A Better Name

[Bobbolytic]

I think they really ceased being Cellular Phones when analog signalling faded into digital (CDMA/TDMA/GSM). But I suspect that since these digital signals are still passed over radio waves of whatever frequency(cies), I assume there are still cells, right? I don't know. I don't care. Whatever you call it, you still use it to annoy me at work, at the show, in the elevator, at the cafe, in the restaurant, and while doing you makeup while simultaneosly endangering all of us on the freeway. Hands-free does not mean "you are now free to make hand gestures to the person you're talking to." You realize, don't you, that they can't see you? Hey, can I borrow a few bucks? I really need a new ringtone--this one I bought yesterday afternoon seems to be getting me more sideways glances than I was going for...

Re:A Better Name

[Firethorn]

There are most definitly still cells. While your standard home portable phone usually only has one transmitter, 'cellular' phones can make use of a vast network of stations, transition between stations more or less seamlessly, etc... The transition to digital didn't affect that at all.

With more towers they can give better coverage to more users while transmitting using less power for each cell tower.

For that matter, they used the term 'cellular network' when describing a wireless computer network using multiple 802.11a/g routers. Lots of users in a small area? You can place more routers closer together and turn down the transmission power so routers on the same frequency don't interfere with each other.

Re:A Better Name

[cayenne8]

"Seriously, though, it seems the younger a person is, the less they use their phone for voice. Which is a major change from when I was 14."

That doesn't make sense to me....those txt messages cost about $0.10/msg...whereas your phone has tons of voice minutes these days for the basic fee. I would think the parents paying for that 14 yr old's phone would 'nudge' him away from this since it costs them more.

I found a way around it a bit with my Sprint pcs vision plan. I costs me per SMS txt msg, but, I can send picture mails for free...all I want, so I just send a pic to someone I want to msg..and get it done for free. Again...this is usually only for situations where a voice would be practical.

But, in general, unless someone has a new plan that has txt cheaper to use than voice...I'd think the parents would be telling the kids to cut it out, as that it keeps running up the bill.

Re:A Better Name

[RDW]

wotU sAyn gr&dad? txt S cheapR if u PAYG!

Re:A Better Name

[dgatwood]

The difference is that $7.99 gets you unlimited text messages if memory serves, while unlimited voice from the same carrier will cost you $99.99. So basically, the kid can either worry about counting minutes or can simply limit himself/herself to text messages and not worry about it.

Seriously, the reason we're seeing more use of other phone services is that cellular communications are overpriced in general. The uptick in text messaging is a backlash against the exorbitant per minute rates on what amounts to a packet-switched data network. As we see more services provide flat-rate data services, we'll be seeing more and more use of VoIP or AIM A/V or other similar protocols over that instead of voice calls, too. The market is rebelling, and if the cell companies don't adjust their architecture accordingly, they're going to be left with a lot of data pigs and no cash cow voice to prop up their business.

In much the same way that cell phones decimated the long distance per-minute market, the first company to do flat-rate voice, text, and data for $49.99 per month + $10 per additional line will wipe the floor with the competition and will completely change the face of cellular communication as we know it. The only question is which company will actually be able to pull something like that off.

Re:A Better Name

[cayenne8]

What cellular plan are you on?

I'm on sprint pcs....I get like 1000 minutes voice, unlimited weekends and nights after 7pm, unlimited data/web...free long distance..and the vision package....for like $80/mo....I never get close to the daytime minutes, as that I pretty much use my phone primarily on weekends or evenings...SMS would be extra on top of that.

I find the LD alone makes it worth it to talk....and the times I've had to SMS msg...sometimes it doesn't seem to get to other phones on other networks...so, I'd say that was actually a little less reliable than voice...

Really..what plan are you on that really makes txt more of a value than voice?

Re:A Better Name

[superiority]

In New Zealand, most teenagers have Prepay accounts for their phones, where credit is loaded on, then used up as you go. No free minutes or messages, and when you're out of money, you can't do anything. Also, one of the network providers offers 1000txts/$10, provided those messages are to phones on the same network, or else $10 for 500 txts to any phone. Those work out to only 1c/txt and 2c/txt respectively.

Re:A Better Name

[narcc]

$50 bucks will get you unlimited voice from Cellular One, another $15 will give you unlimited data. I don't know about text messages, as I never use them. Getting close eh?

Wow...

[xENoLocO]

Don't we have a little bit bigger problems to worry about on this planet then what to call a damn cell phone? People really need to get their shit in line...

Hundreds of people outside every best buy and walmart to buy the new playstation 3, but something like the patriot act goes by and no one even gives a damn...

Congratulations, world... we're the blithering morosn that they want us to be!

whatever

[ethanms]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones

Maybe in your tiny view... But the vast number of other people in this world are still using it as a phone, probably many more people use it as JUST a phone rather then for the other features it has--So to say that voice calls seem to be the "least-used" function is completely idiotic.

But I agree that the term "cell phone" could easily go away... "wireless communications device" yeah, that has a much nicer ring to it. I'm sure my 61 year old mom will be keen to switch over to the new more accurate description... after all, 30 years later she's still calling the remote control for the TV a "clicker" and any day now she'll stop.

I nominate:

[Anne_Nonymous]

Leash

Re:I nominate:

[AnswerIs42]

May be "funny" but it is true. With Cell/Moble/Whatever you want to call it.. people can get a hold of you almost anytime and anywhere. So, unless you turn it off or leave it behind, you are always at someone beck and call.

And with GPS in phones now, you're boss can find you and see where you are at for you're one hour lunch break and give you a call to talk about things.

Re:I nominate:

[Danse]

With Cell/Moble/Whatever you want to call it.. people can get a hold of you almost anytime and anywhere. So, unless you turn it off or leave it behind, you are always at someone beck and call.

Well, it's either part of your job, or it isn't. If it isn't, then don't talk work if you're not working. Tell them you're busy, or just don't answer it if you know it's a work call. If it is, then I hope you're being paid well enough.

Re:I nominate:

[Volante3192]

So, unless you turn it off or leave it behind,

Or my favorite, just ignore it.

Re:I nominate:

[SillyNickName4me]

Almost all ericsson and now sony ericsson phones I have seen have a 'whitelist' feature. Enable it and only add people you trust to not disturb you with nonsense, and you can both be reachable and not get disturbed by your phone all the time.

Re:I nominate:

[jeffy210]

That is a general problem with the way people view cell phones. I am sorry, but I am not there for the phone. It is there for me. If i choose to answer it i will. Otherwise, you can have a pleasant chat with my voice mail. Just because you are calling me, does not mean that I have to answer it.

Re:I nominate:

[drinkypoo]

So, unless you turn it off or leave it behind, you are always at someone beck and call.

Or I just don't answer it.

What is it with all you people who have too little willpower to simply not answer your phone? Are you Pavlov's humans? *ring* *picks up phone*

Re:I nominate:

[jawtheshark]

Part of the job? I guess you don't have a wife and/or mother? ;-) Leash is pretty damn approriate.

Re:I nominate:

['nother poster]

I don't always answer my wifes calls. If she has a problem with that she can call someone that cares.

Re:I nominate:

[malsdavis]

And with GPS in phones now, you're boss can find you and see where you are at for you're one hour lunch break and give you a call to talk about things.

This is already possible, and it doesn't require a special GPS handset. There are several services which allow people to 'track' the location of a mobile phone (I'm guessing a 'cellphone' is the same thing also) users by the same triangulation method the actual phone companies use to decide which base-station you should be connected to so that you get the best reception.

In cities (where there are normally more base-stations than in rural areas) this can normally pinpoint your location to within a couple of dozen metres. A friend of mine says his boss uses it to make sure he isn't slacking off when out on the road.

Re:I nominate:

[cayenne8]

"May be "funny" but it is true. With Cell/Moble/Whatever you want to call it.. people can get a hold of you almost anytime and anywhere. So, unless you turn it off or leave it behind, you are always at someone beck and call."

Well, there is a 3rd option. I've never seen a cell phone yet that doesn't have an 'answering machine' service built right in. I use this much like I did my old answering machine when I had a land line. I can see who is calling, and if I don't wish to answer...I let the service pick it up. Easy to listen to later, and return call if required.

Unless you insist yourself on answering every call...rather than looking to see who it is on the screen that is calling. You can also turn the ringer off too you know.

:-)

"And with GPS in phones now..."

Now, this one...it bothers me. I've disabled it in my phone, but, not sure I trust how disabled it is. I'd like to be able to have more control over my phone..some kind of hack, to ensure I can completely deactivate this puppy....with the services starting to be offered by the phone co's to help you locate your 'friends' by the phone's GPS....I get a little wary. You do have a good point here.

Re:I nominate:

[cayenne8]

"Part of the job? I guess you don't have a wife and/or mother? ;-) Leash is pretty damn approriate. "

You know...back in the ancient days (12+ yrs ago?), we got along plenty well without cell phones, and someone NOT being able to call you anywhere anytime. YOu can today survive in the same manner, you now just have to emulate not having a cell phone that can reach you everywhere. This can easily be done by not answering it every time it rings...and at the very least, screening the calls.

Besides...it you are so submissive to anyone else (wife/mother) that it really feels like an invisible leash, then I think you have larger issues to deal with other than being bugged by a cell phone.

Grow some cajones dude.

:-)

Re:I nominate:

[jawtheshark]

I have no problem not answering my wife if she calls me on my cellphone.

The problem is coming home and having a furious wife.... I'd rather pick up the phone and not have to deal with a fury in the evening ;-)

But, yes, I recall the sweet times that I didn't have a cellphone. Aaaah, those were the times.... ;-)

Re:I nominate:

[b0s0z0ku]

The problem is coming home and having a furious wife.... I'd rather pick up the phone and not have to deal with a fury in the evening ;-)

Hey, you chose to marry her... I'd say keep turning it off during the day and if she gets mad, ignore her... Basically, treat her like a 2 yo who has temper tantrums - it *will* break her of that habit.

-b.

Re:I nominate:

[cayenne8]

"The problem is coming home and having a furious wife.... "

Tell her to "get over it", that you were busy.

I don't deal well with 'bitchiness' from women. If they don't like it, they can hit the road, there are plenty more out there...

Re:I nominate:

[CreatureComfort]

This attitude drives me crazy. Just because your phone rings, doesn't mean that you must answer it. My gf is like you. We're cuddled up on the couch, watching a movie, and her phone rings. She is psychologically incapable of ignoring it and checking the voice mail/caller ID later. She has to get up and see who is calling right that instant.

As for myself, the vast majority of the time my phone rings (mobile only, got rid of the land line years ago), I don't immediately answer it. If I have my hands free, I may look at the incoming number and decide if I have time to talk to that person now, but normally I just let it go to voice mail until I am ready to have a phone conversation. All of the people important to me know that if they need to talk to me right away and I haven't picked up, to call me right back. If my phone goes off twice in a row, especially if it's from the same number, I always pick up. But everyone also knows that when it rolls to voice mail, I usually call back within a few minutes, unless I'm in a meeting or doing something that takes longer. Then I will call as soon as I am able to.

Re:I nominate:

[maxwell demon]

Just in case you didn't know that particular fact about cell phones: You can switch them off!

Re:I nominate:

[dgatwood]

But sadly, the Sony Ericsson phones don't have a blacklist (last I checked), which is equally useful....

My experiences at Cellular Toys.

[zwilliams07]

ZW: Hello, I'm looking to get a cell phone.
Salesperson: Wonderful, let me show you our latest models.
*Salesperson tries showing off cell phones with various camera, gaming, music, and video functions*
ZW: I was looking for something with actual battery life and making calls from. I have absolutely no interest in those other functions.
*Salesperson looks puzzled*
Salesperson: ...what?
ZW: I don't want any of those extra functions, just phone service.
*Salesperson exchanges bewildered glances with his fellow worker at the cellphone case section*
Salesperson: I don't follow... what do you want?

Re:My experiences at Cellular Toys.

[bladesjester]

Wow. I'm not the only one who had that moment?

I went to change my plan a few months ago, and got my new free phone to go with it (the old one was a few years old- so old in fact, that they didn't have a data cable for it anymore so I had to manually re-enter all of my numbers into the new phone). The girl behind the counter commented on the fact that they had free camera phones as well and looked at me strangely when I told her that I just wanted a phone and not a camera.

Re:My experiences at Cellular Toys.

[zwilliams07]

You're definitely not the only one. The problem with the cell phone industry is that it's going the way of most media, to the lowest-common-denominator. Luckily Motorola seems to be offering something for those of us that want just a basic phone: http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/17663/

Re:My experiences at Cellular Toys.

[bladesjester]

In the end, I picked out the Sanyo VI-2300. It's a fairly simple phone. Folds closed like my old one so I don't have to worry about "butt dial" and the battery lasts something on the order of 4+ hours. It has options for things like their wireless web browsing, but I turned that off.

I have a couple of complaints about it, though. I want to be able to turn down the ringer volume without opening the phone, and I hate the click wheel. The small joystick on my previous phone was much easier to use without looking - not to mention more responsive.

Re:My experiences at Cellular Toys.

[Chemical]

Just like with remote controls for car stereos, you don't realize how valuable a seemingly useless and ridiculous feature is until you actually have one. Always having a camera at your disposal has tremendous utility that proves useful in a variety of situations. The camera feature has become so ubiquitous that even the free phones have cameras now. Why would you want something with less utility for the same price?

Re:My experiences at Cellular Toys.

[bladesjester]

Why would you want something with less utility for the same price?

Let's see. My off-the-top-of-my-head list up to this point -
* One more set of buttons to worry about pushing at the wrong time
* The camera likely draws power that I want to use for actually using the phone (I like having a long battery life as there are some days that I end up having to spend 4 hours on the phone). Even if it doesn't unless active, refer back to point 1.
* I have, on occasion, been in locations where I needed my phone, but, thanks to security measures, cameras were forbidden.

I also have to ask who in the nine hells needs a remote for a car stereo. If I need to do something that I can't accomplish without looking then I wait until I have reason to stop. As for the people that may be behind me, they don't need to be fiddling with the bloody thing.

Re:My experiences at Cellular Toys.

[Chemical]

Your reasons are reasonable, but just to rebut:

-The camera feature on my phone is activated by a single large, marked button, and can't be used while making a call. If you have to worry about hitting it accidentally, you must have very fat fingers.
-AFAIK it doesn't draw power unless in use.
-Yes, I too have been in places that disallow cameras, but I guess I've never needed a phone in those situations

Anyway, I used to think it was a stupid features... until I got one. Now it'd be hard to go back.

As for car stereo remote... changing the volume/station/track without having to look down is very convenient and much safer. I'm not going to pull off the freeway just so I can look down safely. Again, once you have one, you realize how useful it is. Otherwise you just think it's stupid.

Re:My experiences at Cellular Toys.

[zwilliams07]

-The camera feature on my phone is activated by a single large, marked button, and can't be used while making a call. If you have to worry about hitting it accidentally, you must have very fat fingers.

Most cellphone makers put their camera buttons either near the volume adjust settings or within the contextual keys. Just because yours does not, does not mean they all have the same design. My father has a phone from LG, the camera buttons are mixed in with the contextual keys. He never, ever, uses the camera despite the fact that he constantly hits the buttons for it.

-AFAIK it doesn't draw power unless in use.

Even if the camera is off, it still draws power. It is just like any other electronic device. Have you ever put a set of batteries in a calculator that you don't use, only to find out later the batteries are dead later on? The cameras share the same logicboards as the rest of the phone and still have power passing through the parts.

-Yes, I too have been in places that disallow cameras, but I guess I've never needed a phone in those situations

I thought the entire point of owning a cellphone is to be available to anyone, at any time. I have been in many situations where camera phones weren't allowed. Most often when I go to the labs.

Anyway, I used to think it was a stupid features... until I got one. Now it'd be hard to go back.

Well that is you, that is not everyone else. As I stated before, my father never uses the camera on his phone. I never use my PVR's movie service, or most of its functions outside of record and playback functions. I have a multi-function Canon Pixma, I rarely use its fax or SD-to-print functions.

The same with my cellphone. I don't need a camera, I already have two (one JB-1* and Canon PowerShot).

As for car stereo remote... changing the volume/station/track without having to look down is very convenient and much safer. I'm not going to pull off the freeway just so I can look down safely. Again, once you have one, you realize how useful it is. Otherwise you just think it's stupid.

You're still distracted and looking away from the road. I rarely listen to radio, instead I listen to podcasts and music off my iPod. My purchasing of an iPod was partially influenced by the fact that it didn't have features that I found unnecessary. I didn't, and still don't need a FM-tuner, or Wifi support. Because it lacks those two functions, it has better battery life.

I have some friends that do use the cameras on their phones, most of the time they are useless photos that I could of gone without.

Why would I need a cellphone with "Vcast" or "MP3 Player" functions? Too drop actual battery talk time to near nothing? I have an iPod that is dedicated to playing all my media and have a dedicated 10-12 hours of battery time. Which would you be rather be stranded at the side of the road? A cellphone with no charge left, or a cellphone with a charge because you didn't waste it all on playing music?

Don't assume just because your situation and behaviors warrant those features, that the rest of us don't need, makes them a justifiable pro to a con.

*JB-1: That novelty James Bond camera (@ThinkGeek) it is the size of a lighter, and it holds more photos than most camera phones offer.

We need a new name!

[Asrynachs]

I intend to throw the gauntlet down right now and propose a proper name change. From now on the wi-fi phones will be called 'wi-phones' that's right I said it. It's nothing fancy but it describes what it is with no added crazyness.

WiFi is cellular

[DrDitto]

The term "cellular" originally implied frequency reuse in terms of space. WiFi does the same exact thing-- frequencies are reused. But WiFi doesn't support seamless hand-offs from one cell to the next (your TCP/IP connections will drop). And then the FCC refers to "cellular" as the 800MHz spectrum allocated for cellular phones, as opposed to the "PCS" spectrum at 1900MHz.

Wi-Fi on phones -- what?

[michaelmalak]

Wi-Fi is used on cell phones more than EVDO is? I would be surprised if that's the case, and given that the BusinessWeek article didn't even mention EVDO, I can't give any credence to the article at all. EVDO is definitely cellular technology, so calling EVDO smartphones "cell phones" (or just "my cell", as I do) is not a misnomer.

New Marketing Name Wanted!

[lancejjj]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones

In other words, despite the fact the cell phones are used mostly for voice calls, more money can be made by selling data services - data services that use the same technology that the voice calls use.

So it's a hard sell if you call it a "cell phone with high priced data transfer features".

So a new name is in order, with the exclusive purpose of charging more monthly and per-byte fees.

Perhaps "Super-Z i-DataMax" is an awesome name that'll help sales of these otherwise lame services? How else can we sell to this otherwise saturated market? Vote "yes" by texting to 50493, or vote no by texting to 50494! (fees apply!)

Re:New Marketing Name Wanted!

[radtea]

So it's a hard sell if you call it a "cell phone with high priced data transfer features". So a new name is in order, with the exclusive purpose of charging more monthly and per-byte fees.

Blackberry?

language is a museum

[cucucu]

Long after things go away, words stay. Examples from telephony:

• You can "dial" without a dial.
  
• You can send SMS using your "phone" without uttering a single phone.
  
• According to TFA, you will be able to use your cellphone without cells.
  

I once read that numbers still reflect the way our ancestors related to number. At first they thought that two and half are two completely separate entities. Soon they discovered that each number is related to its fraction (three --> third, four --> fourth, etc). This is true in English as well as in the other (two) languages I speak.
So let our language reflect the story of telephony too.

What of the Germans?

[Moby Cock]

In Genrmany (at least while I was there) they were reffered to as a Handy. It was an odd bit of English adoption that has a double-entendre to it only in English. Stragely it was embraced in Germany and most people would talk of 'forgetting their handy'.

Re:What of the Germans?

[repetty]

What most Americans now refer to as "walkie-talkies" were referred to as "handy-talkies" back in WWII.

I can see how the Germans might come to refer to a cell phone as a "handy."

--Richard

Re:What of the Germans?

[n6kuy]

The expensive ones used by police, firemen, etc. are still called handy-talkies.

Walkie-Talkies are the toy version that kids use....

Wi-Fi and Wi-Max use cells as well

[Colin E. McDonald]

As a user travels between coverage areas of either of these technologies the user transfers between "cells". All communications are in effect via cells. Either written (snail mail)(between post offices covering zip codes) or groups of people (circles of influence or cells of influence)by spoken word or via mobile phones which switch between transceivers regardless of frequency, protocol, badnwidth or popularity. I think cell phone still sounds pretty cool. Let's keep it. CM

Really?

[KeepQuiet]

it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones

And it almost seems that the author of this article has no clue about what he writes. Except capturing a few (bad looking) pictures with my phone, I don't use it for anything else but talk to someone. Actually I wish there were a small phone with excellent reception, battery life and a reasonable price. Almost all phones in the market is full of junk and very expensive. What the cell phone companies give for free is either brick sized or bad quality.

fp

[Anonymous Coward]

i dont care wtf trendy name you give it, im still going to call it a cell phone.

Re:fp

[famebait]

i dont care wtf trendy name you give it, im still going to call it a cell phone.

Damn right. And don't even get me started on all those new-fangled names for horseless carriages those you whippersnappers are trying to get us to these days.

phone.

[famebait]

Just call it a phone.
It's not like landlines have a spectacular future or anything.

Re:phone.

[Sloppy]

Yep, that's what I call 'em. And I don't "dial" either; I "call." I've been calling people for 20 years.

A new name? How about BatteryFucker? Tube-phone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Until they can actually make a "device" that doesn't suck a battery dry with 47 features I don't use/want, I'll stick with what I have now. A fucking PHONE. No more. No less. Justifying this conversation any further only gives justification (read jurisdiction) to the powers that be to charge all of us more overall for bandwidth I don't consume. Let's try not to give them more reasons to bend over...

What's that Senator Stevens? You say you have a tube-phone?

cellphone usa

[rakerman]

"cell phone" is the usage in the US and Canada, but I think in the UK it's usually called just a "mobile" and in Germany, I think the term is "handy".

Bah!

[cb_abq]

The notion that the voice call have been replaced by TM's and mobile web is proof that Gen Y is perhaps the most ego-centric generation. "We are doing it, and so must everyone else." If you look around, most people using mobile devices productively are talking. Try to close a major deal with a text message and you will be laughed at.

Car Phone

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad STILL calls his a car phone due to the fact that it was originally stuck in his vehicle.

an idea

[east coast]

How about "The gizmo formerly known as the cellphone"? Maybe we can just steal an old Egyptian symbol and bypass giving it a real name as to confuse honest consumers and make posers think it's meaningful in the Zen sense of the word.

Or maybe we can just keep calling it a cellphone and say to hell with nonsense wording that serves no real purpose and get back to letting the phones do what they do regardless if they're used for actual voice calls or any other number of functions.

I vote for option 2.

Most useless phone feature?

[Rik Sweeney]

I'm trying to think of what I used my phone for in the last 3 days:

* Talking to people
* Sending text messages
* Bluetoothed a movie over to my computer and stuck it on You Tube
* Used the Calendar to remind me of an event

So far I can't actually think of any feature my phone is completely pointless...

Been usin' a moeboe for yeears!

[Anonymous Coward]

You yanks keep chat'n on you're ceouphone. I'll be using me moeboe! Cheers!

Re:Been usin' a moeboe for yeears!

[Viol8]

Cor Blimey , 'oo let Dick Van Bleedin Dyke onto Slashdot?

"Eponymous"?

[davidbrit2]

I didn't realize we had tribes/cities named after the cell phone. :P

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eponymous

Where to start?

[Angostura]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones,

No. Voice calls is the most used function, with SMS following behind. The network operators would like whizzy data services to be the most used service, they would like to get away from being voice carriers - but today, no. The 3G networks are mainly used for 'two way real-time streamed audio' - or voice to you and me.

while Wi-Fi and WiMax use ever-growing amounts of network bandwidth.

  ever-growing, in this case equating to vanishingly small, but now more than zero.

Shhhh....

[Anonymous Coward]

...some of us want to see natural selection work it's magic.

I for one support the "Free gas, no speedlimit, no traffic signal, mad max esque day for streetracer kids, car cell phone users, bass-machine on wheels owners and the generally stupid".

The results would be well worth the day spent entirely at home.

Re:Shhhh....

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, won't you think of the children?!

No, seriously - you could really cull that herd quite effectively with this strategy. That should take the dumb ones out of the gene pool before they get a chance to breed. "Sorry son, I told you not to play in the street on Drive Like A Lunatic Day. The ambulances are too scared to come out, so you're just going to have to bleed to death while you think about what you've done".

Proposed new name

[Quiet_Desperation]

"Annoying little hell boxes"

Or "Lemarchand's boxes" for you Hellraiser fans.

it almost seems

[Threni]

> Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used

Is that "almost seems" as in "doesn't seem"? Mobile phones have never been more popular. If he's writing about something else, perhaps he should describe it as something else.

Inaccurate definition

[Chairboy]

Saying that the cell part comes from geographic "cells" is simply inaccurate. It refers to the frequency mapping used to allow bidirectional communication over radio through use of frequency "cells". I have charts of cell frequencies from the analog days that diagram this. Imagine a hex board, the kind you would find when playing an RPG in your parent's basement. Each hex cell has a frequency. The spread of the specific frequencies is such that each cell around it is theoretically just far enough away to avoid interference. When you'd make an analog call, you'd stake claim to one of the cells, and based on availability, the phone or tower would choose one of those surrounding cells and use that as the frequency for the other half of the phone call. In large crowds or traffic, the phones could lose the ability to get a signal because there were no frequency pairs available (because they were all in use).

So in short, cellular describes the radio frequency mapping, not the geographic spread of "cell" towers. Oh, and the claim that nobody talks on their phones anymore is bollox, as demonstrated by the various people who cut me off in traffic this morning while yammering away on their phones. I'm assuming that they weren't simply using them as ear heaters.

Re:Inaccurate definition

[DaveCar]

you'd stake claim to one of the cells,

I'll bet no-one actually hammers in a stake to claim anything any more.

<sigh>, that's progress.

Re:Inaccurate definition

[kaiser423]

Actually, depending upon the type of network, a geographic ocntext is better than a frequency network.

Typically, each hex cell is divided up into 3 frequencies of 120 degree coverage because you need the extra frequency bandiwdth to shove extra users into the cell -- it's more cost effective. The next cell's 3 frequencies are aligned so that adjacent cells don't have antennas of the same frequency pointing at each other.

Regardless, cells are largely still determined geographically. If there's a lot of users in a geographic location, there's a large number of small hex cells to handle the volume. If you're in the country, the hex cell is much larger. Nothing to do with frequency concerns, but rather geographic distribution of people.

Cells do use spatial and frequency diversity to work their magic, so it's misleading to say that the important issue is the frequency, when really it's both -- and in general is determined by the user distrubution geographically, rather than frequency concerns.

Re:Inaccurate definition

[Anonymous Coward]

Hand-off is what differentiates cellular. Trunced radio reuses frequencies too but was never referred to as cellular. What we call cellular today is the combination of frequency reuse + hand-off between cells.

In some sense all radio frequency usage is cellular. Even radio stations reuse radio frequencies in different cities... but the "cells" are pretty big ;).

Re:Inaccurate definition

[Rob the Bold]

So in short, cellular describes the radio frequency mapping, not the geographic spread of "cell" towers.

I've read a lot of articles on the subject in IEEE Vehicular Technology (and others) dating to 20-30 years ago, and "cell" is frequently used in the geographic sense.

Re:Inaccurate definition

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought they were called cell phone because they ran on batteries:
"Batteries consist of electrochemical devices such as one or more galvanic cells, fuel cells or flow cells." (from Wikipedia)

Re:Inaccurate definition

[negative3]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. When you lay out cells (let's think about that hex board now, shall we) that is a geographic distribution. In certain cellular systems, frequencies are distributed amongst those hexagons - isn't that a geographic distribution? And when you go to CDMA systems (such as IS-95, CDMA2000, WCDMA, and UMTS) you can have adjoining cells operating at exactly the same frequency! The only difference now is a change in the spreading code that each base station is using. Or how about a GSM system using frequency hopping? Adjoining cells can all use the same frequency set and hopping sequence but each has its own specific offset.

So it is simply inaccurate to say that the cell part comes from frequency "cells". The cell part comes from having a bunch of spatially separated cells that allow multiuser communication while sharing some resource. The geographic spread of the cell towers is what facilitates the frequency planning you were talking about. When you are using your cell phone in a "cell," the "cell" you are in is described by numerous parameters, such as spatial coordinates, frequency, etc.

Old way of thinking

[LaughingCoder]

If you think about it, telling people how to reach you (i.e. telling them which medium, like "call me on my cell") is somewhat "old think". Imagine a world where all anyone needs to know is your unique identifier - the "network cloud" figures out how to complete the connection. I simply tell my device "I want to send a message or speak interactively with so-and-so". The device queries the network and determines a) that person is known, b) whether that person is accepting the requested type of communication (in general, or specifically from the caller) c) the best way to complete the connection (video, voice, instant message, email, text message ...). My cellphone/music player/organizer convergence device is the only device I'll need to carry; it will intelligently use WiFi, the cell network, bluetooth, wireless USB, or whatever channel is required to accomplish the requested task. Heck, if you really want to think "outside the box" it *could* use a text channel and use voice-synthesis to make it seem like a voice channel.

For what it's worth, I have used Windows Mobile PDA-type smartphones that come very close to being able to accomplish the above. It had both WiFi and cell GPRS capabilities and could operate smoothly over either path to the internet; in fact it could even (when properly coded) automatically switch over mid-download between GPRS and WiFi. It really is all mostly a matter of software these days. And the company/group that pulls this off may get the chance to name this new device with their own brandname (ala Kleenex and Xerox).

Re:Old way of thinking

[Dachannien]

Imagine a world where all anyone needs to know is your unique identifier - the "network cloud" figures out how to complete the connection.

I'd prefer not to. I get enough spam in my primitive twentieth-century "inbox" as it is.

Re:Old way of thinking

[LaughingCoder]

Did you see step "b" in my sequence? You would have the ability to tell your communicator that you were only accepting non-interactive messages, and only from approved sources. Ditto for incoming, interactive "voice" calls ... you could tell your communicator not to "ring through" if the call is not from anybody on your approved list. This is a step beyond caller ID where you an see who is calling, but you've already been interrupted by the obnoxious ring. A smart communicator would not disturb to tell you that a call had come in because those are the orders you gave it.

Re:Old way of thinking

[Dachannien]

I can't even get my cell phone company to block a number from calling me now. I had to download a silent ringtone to my phone and use up an entry in my phone's memory just to be able to selectively silence certain numbers. You really think a telecom company will bother implementing that feature in the future?

Re:Old way of thinking

[LaughingCoder]

It can be done completely with handset software. Caller ID is an available API. Virtually everything I described in my post is possible with today's hardware and software platforms (Symbian, Windows Mobile). The only role the mobile carrier plays is to provide a data-plan; all the rest uses the internet (including the ID-server I referred to).

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

All three of us

DSL/Cable "Modems"?

[screensaver400]

A DSL or Cable "modem," is certainly not a modular emulator, where the term "modem," comes from. However, the masses viewed a true modem (ala 56k) as the device that gets you online, not as a way or transmitting digital data to analog data over a telephone connection (as the term truly means).

People now think the term "cell phone," refers simply to a portable communication device, not recognizing the true meaning of the term. The "cell phone," will not be going away any time soon.

Re:DSL/Cable "Modems"?

[Imagix]

Where did you get that definition of modem from? Last I checked... it was MODulator + DEModulator (also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem)

Re:DSL/Cable "Modems"?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, modem comes from "MODulator DEModulator"... which is pretty similar in effect to what a cable or DSL modem does.

Re:DSL/Cable "Modems"?

[joto]

Both you and the masses are wrong. A modem is not "the device that gets you online". Neither is it "a way of transmitting digital data to analog data over a telephone connection". (But you are getting closer). Defining modem as "a modular emulator" is bollocks. Try google, wikipedia, whatever...

The correct term that the word "modem" stems from, is "MODulator DEModulator". It MODulates signals from digital to analog, and DEModulates them back from analog to digital. There is nothing that states it has to use a phone line. It could just as well use cable-tv wires, radio, infrared, speakers and microphones, or just about anything else. Thus a "cable modem" is correct usage of the word (of course, you can insist on calling it "cable-tv land-line modem", but for most people, that wouldn't increase understanding of the concept.

Re:DSL/Cable "Modems"?

[ran-o-matic]

A modem is a MOdulator/DEModulator. Doesn't change your point any, just thought you might want to know.

Re:DSL/Cable "Modems"?

[screensaver400]

Consider my foot firmly planted in my mouth. Not sure where I picked up "modular emulator," but I know I read it somewhere years ago. Obviously, I'm wrong, though, and I can't find any really relevant references online. My larger point about the masses using a term regardless of relevancy is still, well, relevant, though.

science fiction

[TheSHAD0W]

"Grandpa, why is this called a cell phone?"

"Why, Timmy, I believe the term goes way back to the beginning of bioengineering, when we had to use entire cells as functional blocks. Of course, now we build discrete protein structures to control our devices. Its a lot more efficient."

Re:science fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

"And yet, we still can't distinguish its from it's. Weird huh?"

Timmy's got quite a mouth on him eh?

Re:science fiction

[TheSHAD0W]

Hmm... Couldn't possibly be a typo, could it?

Car

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't "car" short for carriage? Of course nobody rides in a carriage anymore. The point being, we'll keep calling it a cell phone, let the etymologists sort it out later.

Moo

[Chacham]

eponymous

Verily, praxis of that prodigious lexeme from erstwhile rarity was construed therefore.

How are they counting it?

[ohearn]

Considering that it might take me 5-10 text messages each way to get the same information as a 5 minute voice call, I imagine that by sheer number voice calls are much less than they used to be. Are they looking at how much total bandwidth is used for each type of communication or are they looking at the number of communications sent. It makes a big difference if a 2 minute call is counted the same as a 2 hour call.

Please stop breaking my phone

[bberens]

I just want a cell phone that can make and receive calls effectively. I don't really need mms, e-mail, web, etc. on my phone. Give me one tool that does one thing well. If a phone is big enough to have a usable keyboard I don't want it (I'm looking at you crackberry).

More

[camperdave]

They "cut" (wax records) "tracks" (audio tape) in record studios, even when the output is digital. Also, it is impossible to "rewind" a DVD to see a scene over again.

Re:More

[maxwell demon]

And of course you cut and paste stuff on your computer without ever using scissors or glue ...

Technology changes -- Terminology often doesn't

[Stanislav_J]

People in the U.S. will likely refer to any mobile phone-like device as a "cellphone" for a long time. (Not in the U.K., however, where are they are already traditionally referred to as "mobiles.") The terminology of technology often hangs on long after the original item has mutated or been superseded. Videotape has been around for half a century, yet many people still refer to something being "filmed" rather than "taped." (If it involves a camera, that is -- folks still refer to "taping" a show off TV.) And in the latest generation, in which video is recorded on discs, chips, HDDs, etc., people will still say something like "I taped it on my TiVO," even though no tape is involved.

that's wishful thinking

[Wire3117]

i use my cellphone 70% for speaking and 30% for SMS. i dont even know how to access this wap thing. i mean what's the sense in surfing on such a tiny screen. get real.

Not so for the Majority

[spiedrazer]

While there are certainly many power users out there, I don't believe that a majority of cell phone users are doing anything but making phone calls and an occasional text message. Is this based on some type of survey, or are we just filling space on a slow Monday morning?

'cell' creep

[ElephanTS]

Yes apart from if you work with flash London media types as I do who are increasingly calling it my 'cell'. Seems to affect people that deal with the States a lot. I recently said it myself and I couldn't believe that I had done so.

"Phone" ?

[arielCo]

The "cellular" term originated in the US to differentiate a new access scheme from the older, non frequency-reusing radio telephone system, and caught on in several countries that imported the technology straight from the US, regardless of whether they ever had a radio telephone network. I for one prefer "mobile" as it describes function regardless of technology (the emergence of Wi-*, satellite, etc. would be non-issues).

The "phone" part of the name may be easier to challenge, since their functionality (Voice, [SM]MS, Data) is clearly a bit too much for the original "phone" concept. We just need something more digestible than "mobile communicator".

news for nerds???......

[Gone84]

and forget about Stuff that matters???? who cares what cellphones are called?

ilovebees

[rkrabath]

It should be called a chatter... I'm surprised this wasn't brought up earlier! http://www.ilovebees.com/

Tactics for not being interrupted

[beezly]

So, unless you turn it off or leave it behind, you are always at someone beck and call.

I have a few tactics for not being interrupted;

• Turn the phone off. I use this when I absolutely must not be interrupted. I don't do this often.
• Set to silent and ignore. I use this when I don't want to be interrupted but I do want to know I received a call. That way I can get back to the person when it is convenient for me. I use this less frequently.
• Set to silent and evaluate the call when it rings. I use this more when I am happy to be interrupted. I will likely answer the call so long as it announces the CLI to me. If you hide or don't send CLI me when you ring, I am very unlikely to answer - leave me a voicemail. If I don't want to speak to you, I will not answer - leave me a voicemail. I use this very frequently.
• Set the phone to ring. If I am expecting a phone call from some one that I really don't want to miss (especially if I am in a different room from my phone), I set it to ring. I don't use this very often.

This gives me four ways to screen incoming calls that I wouldn't have with a non-CLI enabled, non voicemail enabled "land" line. With a land line my options are;

• Unplug phone. I will miss all calls and I will be unaware that received any.
• Ignore phone. I will miss all calls. I will be aware that I received calls, but I will not be aware who rang (unless I use something like BT 1471).
• Answer the phone.

I prefer the choices that a mobile gives me.

Re:Tactics for not being interrupted

[Howserx]

I use the same option for both land line and cellular... Ignore. If it's important then they can leave a message, and I'll ignore that too. If I didn't have other people living with me I wouldn't even get a phone. Cellular or land line. I would, of course have to figure out how to order Pizza. As it is I use the phone at home about once a month. Not really worth the 50 bucks or so a month. F'ing phones! I hates them.

Re:Tactics for not being interrupted

[RKBA]

I keep the ring tone of my Palm Treo turned off so that I'm never disturbed by incoming calls, and run a program called "Butler" that makes the green LED blink rapidly when someone leaves a message (just like an answering machine). That way, I have the option of calling back or not as I choose.

Re:Tactics for not being interrupted

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Nokia 6233, and I do all that with just 2 profiles. I have my phone permanently either on a profile called "silent", or "vibration". They're pretty much the same, except for one detail -- the "silent" as the name implies, has no ringtone associated with, although I have a handfull of people I care about on a caller group, with a soft ringtone (it's just "tick tick tick", on level one, the lowest); the "vibration" is exactly the same thing, except it vibrates instead of ringing, and I switch to that when i'm outside (i wouldn't be able to hear such a soft ringtone outdoors, the vibration however is very noticeable, either on the shirt or pants pocket). If i'm in a place where I can't absolutely be disturbed by incoming calls, I just switch it to "flight mode", it will seem like the phone is off to anyone calling me, and i can still use all the other functions, like to do lists, alarms, etc. when i switch it on again, my carrier will notify me by sms of anyone that tried to call me, and i can chose to return the call if i want to. When I go to bed, i just switch to "flight mode" again, program the alarm for 06:00 am, and I'm good to go. I dont feel the need to have a mode which is completely silent, if i just don't want to hear from anyone, i'll simply turn it off, or switch to flight mode.

(i'm in Portugal, btw)

Re:Tactics for not being interrupted

[magnusk]

That comparison doesn't really make sense, because the options you cite are available on landline phones - and they're all free with BT (since you mention them). You just have to enable the services and buy a phone that supports them - just like for a mobile phone.

• Turn the phone off. Yep, just unplug, no problem.
• Set to silent and ignore. Yep, just set the phone to no ringer - most phones have this. Call-time Caller ID is available free from BT (type "caller id" BT into google), and post-call Caller ID is available either from your phone or on 1471, also free.
• Set to silent and evaluate the call when it rings. Yep, you still get a visible indication that there's a call, you have Caller ID, and the BT answering service (1571) is free.
• Set the phone to ring. Yep, this is standard behaviour.

OK, now to compare the features of my landline to a non-CLI enabled, non voicemail enabled, non-ringer adjustable mobile phone...

Re:Tactics for not being interrupted

[JonathanR]

If everybody had this attitude, then it would end up as a continuous volley of telephone tennis. You may choose to ring back when it suits yourself, but by that time, it may not be convenient for the original caller to accept your call.

Re:Tactics for not being interrupted

[beezly]

That's why my voicemail says "Send me an e-mail"!

Re:Tactics for not being interrupted

[beezly]

Sorry, I should have made my self clearer.

When I say "silent" I mean "silent and vibrate". If I set a land-line to not ring, then there is no way for me to know that I have an incoming call. My mobile will vibrate discreetly in my pocket. There's no way for my land-line to do the same.

Also, 1471 will only give you the incoming number of the last call.

I wouldn't have a land-line at all except that I require it for my ADSL. It's expensive and not useful to me.

I get all the features of my mobile on my land line by diverting my land number to my mobile.

OK, now to compare the features of my landline to a non-CLI enabled, non voicemail enabled, non-ringer adjustable mobile phone...

Good luck finding one. I have a ready supply of land-line phones with none of these features (I'll let you have voicemail as it is provided by the network).

Re:Tactics for not being interrupted

[Anonymous Coward]

What about an answering machine? Not quite the same as voicemail. Inexpensive one-time purchase.

Re:Tactics for not being interrupted

[sbryant]

For your land line: get a new phone! There are plenty of models out now that not only show you the caller's number, but also keep a list of unanswered calls (who and when). Mine (4 years old) shows me the person's name too, if it's in the "address book" (which is a stupid name for something that does not contain addresses). A lot of these phones will let you turn the ring off, for silent operation.

By the way, some mobile phone networks will let you know who called you (and when) while your phone was off, by sending you a message when you turn it back on. Mine (Vodafone) does this. It's very useful.

-- Steve

Re:Tactics for not being interrupted

[beezly]

I'm not at home much - so I just divert my home phone to my mobile - gaining all the features of my mobile in one go :)

Re:Tactics for not being interrupted

[tehcyder]

This gives me four ways to screen incoming calls that I wouldn't have with a non-CLI enabled, non voicemail enabled "land" line. With a land line my options are;

Unplug phone. I will miss all calls and I will be unaware that received any.

Ignore phone. I will miss all calls. I will be aware that I received calls, but I will not be aware who rang (unless I use something like BT 1471).

Answer the phone.

I prefer the choices that a mobile gives me.

Oh, come on, in the UK you can get caller display and BT's answering service for a few quid a year, and a digital-display land line phone costs hardly anything.

Except at work, I now always know who's trying to call me.

roses

[circletimessquare]

actually taste dry, astringent and bitter, not sweet

(i'm not a grammar nazi, i'm an olfactory nazi)

Use the German

[Anonymous Coward]

Handy?

Maybe go worry about something IMPORTANT

[BarnabyWilde]

Maybe go worry about something IMPORTANT

I know, it's a "phone"!

[joto]

I keep a phone in my pocket, not a cellphone, or personal communicator or mobile phone, or whatever. It's phone, period! The thing I call with at the office is also a "phone", but unlike most phones, it's a stationary phone.

Likewise, when I drive, I use a car. Not a motorized car. Not a passenger car, and certainly not an automobile. Or any other silly moniker for that matter. I'm aware "car" had other meanings 200 years ago. I don't care today.

some foreign name anyone?

[polemon]

How about we use some allready mainstream term, but from a foreign language? I suggest useing "Kei-Tai" the japanese Term for cellphone...

WTF???

[DragonWriter]

Once upon a time, the now-eponymous portable derived its name from the small sections (deemed "cells") into which a city was divided in order to keep voice calls smooth and uninterrupted.

"Eponymous" is an adjective that applies to a person that gives a name to something (a work of art, a city, a tribe, whatever); you could, I suppose, generalize it to an object, but if you did the portable wouldn't be "eponymous", since the portable doesn't give its name to the small sections, the small sections would be eponymous, the portable would be the eponym that takes its name from the eponymous sections.

And its odd to say they were "deemed" cells, which suggests that the designation is some kind of subjective opinion. One might simply say that they are cells, under the general definition "any of various small compartments or bounded areas forming part of a whole", or that they were named ("dubbed", perhaps, the less-common "d" word you were looking for) cells by analogy to either the architectural or biological use of the term.

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones, while Wi-Fi and WiMax use ever-growing amounts of network bandwidth.

"Almost seems" means that, in fact, it does not seem that this is the case, which rather undermines the point you seem to be trying to make.

Both make the "cellular" moniker obsolete.

I think this overstates the case; used as a telephone the device remains "cellular", it simply has uses that go beyond that as a telephone. But as long as you are calling it a "phone", the "cellular" modifier still applies. Now, admittedly, many phones are also PDAs or palmtops or internet appliances or media players as well as telephones. But, so? My fax is also a computer printer and is used that way more often than to make or send a "facsimile" of some other existing physical document over telephone lines, its still a fax machine.

Is it time for a new name, or is a rose by any other name still as sweet?

In addition to all the problems with the leadup of the question, it also seems somewhat outdated: the industry doesn't seem to use the term "cellular" much any more, having preferred for years "wireless" or "mobile", which focus on the devices' utility to consumers rather than the underlying implementation, and that's pretty much the only usage that subject to much planned change. Of course, common use has adopted "cell" as a common name for the devices (as often as not as a noun by itself: "call me on my cell!"), but I suspect that trying to change that is as fruitful as trying to get people to stop using "glass" as a generic name for handleless drinking containers just because those are qutie often made of plastics.

Just a cell phone...

[hoggoth]

> Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones
> is it time for a new name

No it's not. How about we call the damn thing a 'Cell Phone' and make it work for voice calls? How about decent sound quality without sounding like I'm talking in a wind tunnel? How about not dropping calls in the middle of a damn conversation? How about the little turd stops flashing 'call missed' without ever ringing in the first place?!

Oh yeah, I forgot... BECAUSE YOU WANT A 10 MEGAPIXEL CAMERA IN YOUR DAMN PHONE! AND YOU, YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO YOUR MP3s ON YOUR DAMN PHONE! AND YOU OVER THERE, YOU WANT TO PAY A COUPLE OF DOLLARS SO YOU CAN HEAR A MIDI BEEP-F'ING-BEEP THE THEME SONG FROM HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL WHEN IT RINGS! AND YOU WANT AN F'ING RING OF GEOSYNCHRONOUS SATELLITES IN ORBIT MONITORING YOUR F'ING LOCATION 24 HOURS A DAY TO WITHIN 50 FEET SO YOU CAN GET BURGER KING ADS FLASHING ALL OVER YOUR 2" SCREEN EVERY TIME YOU WALK PAST A FAST FOOD JOINT LIKE YOU COULDN'T SMELL THE CHARRED FLESH BEFORE YOUR PHONE ALERTED YOU TO IT'S PRESENCE! AND YOU WANT TO DROOL OVER A 0.5 INCH KATE AND SAWYER GETTING JIGGY ON LAST NIGHT'S LOST WHILE YOU STAND IN LINE AT MOTOR VEHICLES.

Hummph Grrrr Grunt... someone wipe the spittle off my chin while I convulse on the floor in a fit of consumer rage and SIGNAL LOST...

keitai

[broohaha]

The Japanese call it Keitai.

Re:keitai

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the Japanese call it "keitai", which means "carryable".

I guess the closest english equivalent would be "mobile".

Not all movies are films, but all films are movies

[ScentCone]

I still call a motion picture a "film", even if it's shot on digital.

Back in the stone age, when I was taking RTVF classes at UMD, one of my intro classes discussed the technical history of filmaking (including the actual, physical film stock and cameras), and such terms as "movies," "talkies," etc.

When a student asked the prof which term ("movie" vs. "film") was more appropriate, he said, "A film is a movie you don't understand."

a name

[edwardpickman]

How about "Irritating Ear Attachments"? Most often seen sticking out of the ears of soccer moms in SUVs. Sorry but I drive a small car and I get tired of dodging soccer moms in giant SUVs too busy talking to drive. Long overdue banning talking on a cell and driving. People abuse the priviledge and it's dangerous.

Remember dials?

[isomeme]

Given that we still "dial" numbers on phones of all types, I would guess nomenclature will prove pretty sticky in this field.

Old sayings die hard.

[suparjerk]

I think "cell phones" will always retain their names even after the terminology no longer makes sense. We still "roll up" our windows, "turn on" our television sets and "hang up" our phones.

Pass the Pipe

[WhiteWolf666]

PreacherTom writes "Once upon a time, the now-eponymous portable derived its name from the small sections (deemed "cells") into which a city was divided in order to keep voice calls smooth and uninterrupted. Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones, while Wi-Fi and WiMax use ever-growing amounts of network bandwidth. Both make the "cellular" moniker obsolete. Is it time for a new name, or is a rose by any other name still as sweet?"

Right.....

'cause even though I'm a nerd, and I hang out with nerds, and I would guess that my experience is biased _towards_ people who use mobile's for data, the _vast_ majority of my usage, and my friend's usage, is for voice.

I only two people with unlimited data plans, and one of them is me!

Just because data has become a mobile "app" that is just now leaving the realm of total nerds != data is the king of mobile applications. Voice, by a large margin, is the largest usage of mobile bandwidth, and will continue to be for the forseeable future.

Bullshit

[maggard]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones

Bullshit.

... while Wi-Fi and WiMax use ever-growing amounts of network bandwidth.

Double bullshit.

While cellphones/mobiles might have all sorts of ancillary functions they are still first and foremost telephones. That someone thinks otherwise indicates they need to stop reading Gizmodo & Engadget and get out in the real world for a few hours. As to WiMax taking up ever-growing amounts of network bandwidth, sure, if up from .00000001 to .00000002 percent is worth blathering about.

Find me a few production-level WiMax deployments with significant amounts of traffic and well talk. without such this is just so much empty talk wasting more bandwidth then WiMax has yet to carry.

Oh, and what to call mobile phones? How about mobiles like the rest of the planet? That wasnt so hard, was it?

Re:Bullshit

[stud9920]

Oh, and what to call mobile phones? How about mobiles like the rest of the planet? That wasnt so hard, was it?

Like in Belgium where we call it a GSM, both in French and Dutch ?
or like in Switzerland where they call it a Natel ?
or like in Germany where they call it a handy ? Ho you meant France where they call it un portable ?

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to Slashdot, I see you must be new here. At Slashdot, "the rest of the world" means "where I am."

German name

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany it is called a "handy", except sometimes when they are speaking English and use the term mobile.
I love the name handy, it is descriptive, short, cute, and obvious.

That's pre-old thinking.

[Vellmont]

If you think about it, telling people how to reach you (i.e. telling them which medium, like "call me on my cell") is somewhat "old think". Imagine a world where all anyone needs to know is your unique identifier - the "network cloud" figures out how to complete the connection.

That kind of thinking is just so 21st century, grandpa. Imagine a world where you just think what you want to say, and who you want to send it to, and it's instantly transmitted to the other persons brain. You wouldn't have any kind of device, since it'd all be implanted in your skull at birth.

We're so close to this technology already. They've already done MRI scans of people watching ads and figured out if the ad was effective or not. It's not that far to shrinking down the MRI to implantable size.

Hell, even this is pre-pre-old thinking, as in the 23rd century we'll all be part of the borg collective, and any thoughts of transmitting a message to someone, or even the concept of someone will be obsolete.

Steve Balmer knows!

[batlock666]

Squirt phones!

End of discussion

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones

No it doesn't.

If I killed cell phones, here's how I did it.

[j1mc]

As an avid Slashdot reader, I know that cell phones will not just die without cell phone "killers." Given that possible killers at this time include slivers and razors, I expect either a very slow and irritatingly painful death, or a quick and bloody one.

Death by chocolate remains a remote possibililty.

TOS had this one solved.

[cyc]

Communicator.

You do realize...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

...that many, many of us are already old enough to be able to appeal to first-hand experience to explain to the young'uns why we refer to placing a phone call as "dialing," right?

I like...

[Anonymous Coward]

"comm"

Marketroids

[eno2001]

If the marketroids decided tomorrow to call it something else, it would just happen. And marektroids are notorious for NOT understanding technology. An engineer would call it an "802.11a/b/g comm device". A geek would call it a "Wireless Net Phone" or some other crap. A suit would call it "My latest portable" while being the armchair tech. A clued in guy from the 50s (who I would probably relate to the best) would call it a "Portable Microwave Communicator". But a marektroid would come up with something very likely technically inaccurate with some connection to an already familiar device that also sounds "fun". So the word "phone" would have to stay or possibly be replaced by the every slightly more popular noun "Voip". "Cell" could be sacrificed". You'd have to have something about how fun or image enhancing it is, so words like "My", "Personal", "Power", "Real", "Enhanced" would be used. Or you could also signify fun and image enhancement with trendy names that start with 'i' or 'e' as of 2006. 'q' seems to be a classic as well. Or the ever popular made up name that sounds good but means nothing. Some examples"

Voia
InterVoia
Luxacomm
HyperVoice
qVantage Voip Services
iqPhone
My Power Voip
QualVantage Power VoIP
DilPhonics Voyaphone

Of course none of them have the power and capabilities of the greatest device in the known universe. The Interocitor. Take that you trendhumping monkeys.

voice least used?

[maokh]

Maybe to some high tech geeks, voice may seem to be the least used function. But as someone in the cellular industry, I can tell you voice far exceeds any other type of usage.

If anyone ever does push that mystical "web" button, its on accident. Actual usage of "value add" data services is very minimal at best. A vast majority of customers just want a phone for one purpose: voice

I do not understand what WiMax or WiFi has to do with Wireless WAN services either.

This is why I don't use Sprint!

[pctech3]

I see that they have even brainwashed their own techs. The term 'cell' was strictly a geographic division with auto switching between sites, and the fact that Sprint tried to convince the public that they supplied something totally different when they didn't really turned me off to them.

Sprint didn't really have anything new to sell, so they made up the myth that they had something different than cell phones which was just 'smoke and mirrors'. Then when they divided the city up into 'supercells' that could not talk to each other without incurring additional fees that was just the cake on the icing!(sic)

If the PCS was actually the first digital phone, they should just have marketed 'the first digital cell phone' instead of trying to change the name of the device. (PCS - Personal Communication System) That just added more confusion to an already confused consumer base, and actually slowed the growth of the industry for some time.

Oddly enough, all of the 'mobile phone' towers are still legally called 'cell site towers', even Sprint's. And by the way, the hexagonal cells were not real, they were just for educational purposes. They were actually random shaped as the terrain and available tower locations required.

***Sig Block***

Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.

******

I didn't steal your sig, I just borrowed it. You can have it back now.

Thank You.

Re:This is why I don't use Sprint!

[fatphil]

Supercells, and changing behaviour/tariff based on them are a perfectly ordinary part of the GSM standard. Ripping the customer off was designed in as a possibilty from the start. When they say "HomeZone(TM) - cheaper within your registered home location" they actually mean "roaming ripoff not just limited to foreign countries any more".

A couple points

[brokeninside]

The telecommunications industry hasn't used the term ``cell phone'' except to refert to the old analog-only cell style phones in quite some time. 2G and 3G phones have been called ``mobile'' phones rather than ``cell'' phones from the get go. If you talk to a solutions provider about a ``cell'' phone they'll look at you funny in the same way that an automotive technician would if you commented on a horseless carriage.

pAlso, with the possible exception of high school students, voice is still the number one application of anyone that has a mobile phone.

We Are Still Cellular

[jevring]

If you look at GSM and UTRAN (The radio network part of UMTS), you will see that tranceivers are still very much divided into cells. It's the best way to give coverage to an area. The word "cell phone", is therefore in that sense very much usable. However, nobody I know of from anywhere other than the US has ever called a mobile phone a "cell" phone. Over here, it's just "mobile" or "mobile phone".

People have good and bad reasons for renaming things, but renaming the concept of a "cell phone", just because we do more things than talk on it is down right retarded.
It's still cellular, and I have reason to believe that it will stay that way for a very long time.

I don't know...

[Anonymous Coward]

...perhaps I'm just weird, but I use my cell phone mostly as a phone.

Most cellular traffic is voice. Here is why.

[Kodack]

If data is used so much, why are you paying your cell phone bill for voice minutes, but data plans tend to be unlimited?

I'm only going to delve into the GSM side here since it is the widest standard in use through out the world and CDMA is USA/Korea only.

Most of the network bandwidth is devoted to voice calls. In order to handle a 'data' call the provider must support either IWF/WAP, or GPRS.

IWF/WAP is the old school "dial up" type data. It uses a 9600 baud "voice" channel and gets routed to an Interworking Function (IWF) to provide the carrier tones and signalling termination to the land line.

A typical IWF configuration can support 24 - 48 data calls....for the entire market.

That means in a large place like Dallas, only a few dozen people can place these dial up or fax calls on one providers service at any one time.

CSD/WAP is transparent to the equipment and is treated like a voice call.

Then came GPRS, which is a dedicated data network for GSM.

GPRS reserves a certain number of radio time slots for each sector to be used for data only or voice first, data if they are idle. These calls bypass the local switch all together and there for don't tie up any voice bandwidth or switching power. This allows for the higher speeds of GPRS and EDGE of 56kbps - 112kbps

The key here is that you have to designate a radio time slot as voice only, data only, or voice first, data second. This means anybody logged in to the equipment can quickly determine what % of the available timeslots are dedicated for data calls.

Most radios use a small handful of their timeslots for data. In fact there are roughly 3 times more resources for voice than data.

these cell "sites" are called BTS's and they are not cheap, and a provider will need hundreds of them to build a cellular network.

Now if you want to provide a wide range of data services, you can upgrade these hundreds of already ungodly expensive BTS machines, upgrade the GPRS equipment to handle the increased data, and upgrade all the way up the line.

This would be prohibitively expensive.

The solution is to use off the shelf WIFI and WIMAX technologies "in addition to" the existing infrastructure, which effectively creates a shadow network for data, which does not interfere with call processing of voice calls at all.

GSM operates at 1800mhz in most of North America and does not interfere with the 2.4ghz wifi signals. The two exist side by side.

So in summary, right now, voice is still the king. When you get your $50 cellphone bill, it's not for surfing google, it's for purchasing and using voice minutes. Remember that please, voice plans = X number of minutes, data plans = unlimited for set fee.

WiMaxx is the cheaper answer to 3G for a lot of carriers and it is only when data becomes reliable, cheap, and widely available, that it will ever begin to surpass the common and under appreciated ability to pick up a phone and place a voice call to someone any time of day.

Doesn't anyone remember Star Trek:TOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

If "mobile phone" has too many words, just call it a "communicator".

Today's kids have it easy

[davidwr]

When I grew up in the Milky Way, the dialer actually lived up to its name.

I bet most of today's Pegasus Kids have never seen a good old-fashioned dialer.

texting while driving

[gosand]

"it almost seems" to whom? Stand by a busy road sometime, and count the % of people driving past using their cell phones to make voice calls. Come and and tell me it seems like voice calls are the least-used function of phones.

I thought that was a pretty dumb statement to make as well... but I have actually driven around someone on the freeway (going 70 MPH) who was driving slow and kind of erratically. When I got up next to him he had his blackberry up on top of the steering wheel and was typing a message with both hands.

Yeah, not a mobile phone, but I wonder how many people send text messages while driving? I really hope that Darwin takes care of these people and it doesn't include any innocent bystanders.

Re:texting while driving

[geoffspear]

I don't know how may people there are out there using their Blackberries while driving, but I bet most of them read Business Week and agree heartily with this article.

Its alot like...

[*s.panzer*]

Hey, the computer does alot more than it did ten years ago. More than that, people do different things with it. We must come up with a new name for the computer!!

One for the Rucker fans

[lindsayevans]

Mophone.

Nokia just has to figure out the whole 4th dimension antenna thing.

Huh?

[Sir Holo]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones

Perhaps in the bizarro world the author inhabits. In the real world, I see people using them only for talking, and nothing else.

OK, except maybe for texting, but I don't really hang out with barflies and teenagers, so I don't see it.

Just wait a few years ...

[SubOptimalUseCase]

... when they get small enough, we can call them 'implants.'

Dear Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Please look up the meaning of the word "dialect." Do not return to Slashdot until you fully understand the implications of this concept as it applies to speakers in (for instance), London vs. Yorkshire, or New York vs. California.

Thank you,

Another Anonymous Coward.

How about phones that work?

[Wansu]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones ...

I've had 3 different providers and there have been signal strength problems with all of them. I'd like to use my cell phone as my primary but until the robustness and reliability improves, that won't happen. Web surfing, music and other stuff is frilly fluff as far as I'm concerned. I want a phone that works well all the time first. Then I'll consider all the other stuff.

Re:How about phones that work?

[four_plane_color]

Hear, Hear!

Nokia 770

[emil10001]

I was in the same boat as you, just wanting too much out of a mobile phone. I just picked up the Nokia 770 and it does just about everything you mentioned in your dream device - except that it can't make phone calls. The idea is that you tether a small cheap mobile phone to it via bluetooth and connect to the net that way (or wifi). It runs Debian, and X, with maemo as the UI.

I'm more than pleased with this thing so far, and when I get my next phone in a month, the only thing that it needs to do is have a decent data connection with bluetooth DUN. I think that the really nice thing about this is that it detaches your data needs from your cell needs. Smartphones are nice in that they are a nice all-in-one device, except that the small ones have tiny screens that are useless for images/web, and the big ones you have to lug around a big, bulky phone with you everywhere. With a separate device, you can have a small phone, that does that job really well, and a separate web-browsing device, with a nice big screen, that you can leave at home when you don't need it.

Geez, I hate to sound like an advertisement for this device, but it's pretty sweet. (I have no affiliation with Nokia or maemo.org.)

In Australia, we call them 'mobiles'

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes me think of the dangly thing with toys you hang over a babies cot.

Just a phone

[robertjw]

First, as has been said MANY times, voice is still the primary use of a cell phone.

Second, I don't typically call mine a cell, I just call it a phone. It is my only phone, I always have it and don't really care if anyone want's to rename it. I'll probably still call it a phone.

phones

[MS-06FZ]

I just call them "phones".

Look no further !@

[Anonymous Coward]

Interossiter !

  Of course ! :)

toy that can sometimes make crappy phone calls

[brre]

I've now owned three cell phones using three different cell standards serviced by five different vendors. Not one of them delivered decent voice quality with any reliability. Most of them most of the time delivered lower quality sound than long distance phone service had 40 years ago. All of them sported far more gimmicky features (that contributed nothing to phone calls) than I ever wanted, needed, or used.

It's time to name the device for what it is: a toy that can sometimes make crappy phone calls.

If you want a toy that can sometimes make crappy phone calls, you should definitely get what is commonly called a "cell phone". You will be satisfied.

OpenMoko

[Anonymous Coward]

OpenMoko is coming out with an open source phone in the next month or so. Good stuff. Read up on it a bit and subscribe to the mailing list. As someone who used to develop software for small devices, this is like a dream come true.