Number of Cellphones Now Equal To Half the Human Species

netbuzz writes "A major milestone was reached today, according to communications industry analysts: there are now some 3.3 billion mobile phone accounts worldwide. Of course, it doesn't really mean half the world's population has a cell phone, since users in 59 countries average more than one per person. '"The mobile industry has constantly outperformed even the most optimistic forecasts for subscriber growth," Mark Newman, head of research at Informa said in a statement. "For children growing up today the issue is not whether they will get a mobile phone, it's a question of when," Newman said. In recent years the industry has seen surging growth in outskirts of China and India, helped by constantly falling phone and call prices, with cellphone vendors already eyeing inroads into Africa's countryside to keep up the growth.'"

Comments

Never had one, probably never will.

[Beardo the Bearded]

I've never required a cellular phone.

I've never missed having one, even when my wife was quite pregnant.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't own a TV. Never had one. I call it the idiot box. Yesterday at work some was talking about CNN. I was like "CNN, what's that some sort of new car or something?" The told me it was a news channel on TV. At that point I politely reminded them that I don't own a TV and never have.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[cayenne8]

"I've never missed having one, even when my wife was quite pregnant."

I have one....I just don't give the number out.

Cuts down on the incomming calls....

:-)

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[tomz16]

I've never required a cellular phone.

I've never missed having one, even when my wife was quite pregnant. Nice... but, for every cell phone you don't have, I'll have three!
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Beardo the Bearded]

Why am I being modded as a troll? /. doesn't have a "Haha, u sld hv a fon lk m3!" option, so you opted for "troll" instead?

Most people have cellular phones. I'm not one of them. My post is a counterpoint to the article, stating that there are 3.3 BILLION cell accounts. Not everyone has one, and not everyone on /. has one. I choose not to pay hundreds a month to a phone company. I have never wanted one, and I have not encountered a situation where one was warranted. I went to classes and meetings while my wife was 9+ months pregnant - didn't miss a thing. When I was looking for work - I didn't miss a thing.

I'm not a luddite, either. I'm an Electrical Engineer who has done a fair bit of work "advancing our tech level." Some of the things I've worked on are Penokio, P25 radio, and Project Lifesaver. I've literally used my craft to save lives. That's probably more than that mod can say.

Also, it's nice to be first. I've been waiting for seven years.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Beardo the Bearded]

Funnily enough, I'm a vegetarian.

Meat is murder! ...tasty, tasty murder.

(Seriously, I'm a vegetarian for health reasons, but now we're going to get modded as offtopic.)

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reply post also, is a troll.

Who cares if you don't have a phone, you seem to be waiting for a reply that says "You need a phone [stupid reason X]" so you can say 'I don't need one [any number of equally stupid counter-arguments]".

Then the thread would just spin into further stupidity.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Anonymous Coward]

I choose not to pay hundreds a month to a phone company. So do I, which is why I have a cell phone. If you rarely use the phone, there's no cheaper service available than pre-paid wireless.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Saxerman]

If you've never owned a cell phone, you don't know what you're missing. I'm not saying that you would learn to love it, I'm just saying you're criticizing something you've never reviewed.

My own anecdotal story was that I came in late to the cell phone game, and I originally cited similar reasons to your own. As someone who used to have to carry a pager for work, I used to call cell phones the new 'digital leash' and swore I had no use for them. And, perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, I don't really need one, seeing as how I was able to function without one for so many years. But now that I have one, I find it damn convenient.

Although I do know too many people who feel obligated to answer their phone every time it rings. The 'trick' for me is that I control the tool, rather than the other way around. Turn the ringer off, and set it for wiggle mode on specific numbers who don't abuse the privilege of being able to contact you directly.

Certainly a cell phone is a tool that's not for everyone, but I find both the ability to communicate with who I want when I want, and easy access to information (operator, I need an exit) are new abilities that have increased the quality of my life. Even simple pleasures, like being able to call the pizza place while on the way home from work. The more pedantic will claim that I could have merely called before I left work, and they're certainly correct. But, for me, the ability to be more spontaneous is entirely the point.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Beardo the Bearded]

The whole point of /. is to have a series of "stupid reasons" and "equally stupid counter-arguments". It's not like we're doing anything even remotely productive. I've even managed to meta-troll your post.

Every thread will spin uncontrollably into previously unimaginable levels of stupidity.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[SydShamino]

My guess would be that you were modded troll because you were being overly smug. (Shrug, I'm an EE too. I know where my products are used, but no one else reading or posting on this topic cares.)

I have a cell phone. It cost me $8.95. My minutes cost me $90 per year. Only my dad and my wife know the number, and both know I don't like being called. It doesn't mean I'm better (or worse) than anyone else, it just means I don't like being permanently connected a large number of distant (read: not my wife or dad) acquaintances and have no need to chat with anyone constantly.

Other people feel differently, and are perfectly happy to pay $50 a month in pursuit of their goal. My wife, for instance.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[insertwackynamehere]

judging by your signature it sounds like you might be a little paranoid about owning a cell phone, too :P

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[smilindog2000]

Excuse me... is this the Arguing Room :-) I actually have some mod points for a change, but I need another category for great-grandparent. He's neither flame-bait nor informative, nor off-topic. He just doesn't have a cell phone. Let's face it, we slash-dotters are weird. There should be a weird category :-)

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[heinousjay]

Hundreds a month? Welcome to 2007 - if you pay even $100 you're doing something really fancy or really stupid.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[commodoresloat]

I've never missed having one, even when my wife was quite pregnant. But that's the most important time to have one -- when she's far to preoccupied to notice all those phone calls to your lover.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Urza9814]

For an alternative viewpoint:
I have one.
I use it MAYBE once a week. It's useless.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[PopeRatzo]

If you've never owned a cell phone, you don't know what you're missing.

You don't know the joy of being on a crowded bus and having your phone start playing Super Freak by Rick James when your mom calls you. Or having it wake you at 4am from a deep sleep so some drunk can ask for "TeeTee", then cuss you out when you suggest that he might have the wrong number. You can't appreciate the drama of speaking to an important client and suddenly losing the connection and the two of you start singing "I'm Losing You" to each other. You've not had the exquisite embarrassment of having the phone go off (this time I'm a Beast by Li'l Wayne) while you're standing in front of a traffic court judge.

Nosirree, you don't know what your missing.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Beardo the Bearded]

I am the great-grandparent.

And weird is redundant.

Ooh, 5, no preview.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[TheGatesofBill]

You know, most people would just turn the damned phone off when they went to bed, or into court. Or at least put the thing on vibrate. I keep my cell on vibrate all the time, and I don't answer it when I don't want to.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[NNOP]

Why is the parent post moderated as a Troll? I despise my mobile and envy anyone who can get by without. Personally I think of them more as leashes than an actual useful device. Most likely because of the number of unwanted calls I get: "Where are you?, Just checking up, don't be late" "I know its dinner time but I cant VPN to work, can you help me?" etc etc. Before mobiles you could easily be un-contactable when you wanted to 'unplug' from work, family etc. Now you have to explain why your phone was off or why you left it at home. Maybe its just me and my fantasies of being a hermit (with broadband)

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[EEPROMS]

Remove back of mobile, pull battery out, there easily fixed. Anyone asks you have a flat battery.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[PopeRatzo]

You know, most people would just turn the damned phone off when they went to bed, or into court

You would think so, but why then is it so common to hear cellular phones going off in the movies, theater, even the opera? True story: I was at the opening night of La Boheme here at the Civic Opera House here in Chicago. I don't know if you're familiar with the overture, but there's a quiet passage right after the first big flourish, and just at that moment, down on the main floor (I'm up in the cheaper seats, of course), one could clearly hear the Nokia Tune as counterpoint.

I've heard cellular phones go off during Easter Mass, a funeral and countless times at Sox Park (aka Cellular Field). I know my phone has embarrassed me more than once because now I leave it on "vibrate, then ring" so I have a chance to kill it before Super Freak by Rick James starts playing (actually my most recent ring tone has been "Down on the Street" by Iggy and the Stooges, from the phenomenal Raw Power album. But that's only for my bookie. I learned how to make my own ringtones because my daughter kept running up her bill by downloading these $2.95 tunes from AT&T. Now, in a few minutes with Sound Forge or Steinberg WaveLab, I can make a much better ringtone than most of the commercial ones. With careful use of limiting and compression, I can really make the sound pop out of those little units. The problem is, it's a little unseemly for a grown man to have "Shake Appeal" or "Lobotomy" coming out of my pocket whenever my wife calls to tell me to pick up a gallon of milk.)

So yes, you really would think most people would just turn off the damn phone when they went to bed, or into court. But they don't. Time after time.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[slazzy]

True, but how many times per month can you get away with that?

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[TooMuchToDo]

I have a Blackberry that I use extremely frequently (5000+ minutes a month) as I run a small business and am also extremely active with progressive charity/social groups. When I was growing up (I just turned 25), I couldn't see much use for a cellphone. What's the point? There are landlines everywhere. But as globalization kicks in (I have a client from every continent, including antarctica if you include the NSF), and my clients request (and some demand) to get ahold of me at all hours of the day and night (and they're allowed to for what they pay), a cellphone is essential.

I've found that as long as you're polite with your phone around others, and are religious about putting it on vibrate in the situations that warrant it (movies, church, the opera, college classes at UIC) it provides a huge benefit with little downside.

I've written software for my Blackberry (it's called Hushpuppy) that detects certain cell tower identifiers (the same way Google Maps MyLocation does) and transitions the phone from audible alerts to vibrate and back for when I'm on campus or someplace else I frequent where the phone should be quiet. I'd be glad to give the code to those interested.

Remember, the phone is just a tool, like a hammer, or nmap. It's up to the user to use it correctly.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's up to the user to use it correctly.

And therein lies the rub. As long as a significant percentage of people routinely and rudely consider that their ability to use their phone where ever and whenever they want is paramount over any other considerations, they and their cell phones will continue to be an annoying nuisance in the eyes of most of us. And we all know for a fact that the number of such rude people is not inconsiderable.

I got to play with an iPhone this week, for the first time. It's *very* cool. I like it. The geek part of me wants one. The rest of my brain reminds me that it's an expensive toy/convenience.

So, I continue to live without a cell phone of any sort. As does my wife. And my kids. And we don't really miss them. About once a month I have a brief moment where I think "it'd be handy to be able to call XYZ right now and deal with PQR". Then it passes and I go on with life. I'm hardly a complete luddite. I'm the senior technology guy in my small company. I'm *the* power user at work for most things computer-related. I love my PALM, I love my laptop, I love my cable modem and home network and email and digital music studio. But for me, a phone is an expensive nice-to-have. And no, it's *not* cheaper when (a) you can't give up your landline and (b) you need to think about outfitting 3-4 people with phones rather than just one.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[LilGuy]

No doubt. I got a prepaid for my birthday back in september with 6 hours on it. I've used two hours so far. I won't be needing to refill it for another few months.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Hyperspite]

What did the judge say? I'm assuming he had a witty remark. Like on tv!

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Hyperspite]

Make a habit of not charging religiously. Let it go for two days. Every two days or so, you can blame it. If you are actually taking the battery out, you'll still have the power if you need to call *someone else*.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Zenaku]

And here's the explanation you offer: it was your personal time, and you didn't want to be bothered. If that explanation isn't good enough, then guess what my friend -- your mobile phone is not the problem, your job is.

Re:Never had one, probably never will.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people have cellular phones. I'm not one of them. My post is a counterpoint to the article, stating that there are 3.3 BILLION cell accounts. Not everyone has one, and not everyone on /. has one.

So, the article tells us that there are 3.3 billion cell phone accounts. And your response is that there is one guy who doesn't.

Well, duh.

There are lots of people who don't have cell phone accounts. Hearing about one single guy who does not doesn't really tell us much of anything.

I have two

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm doing my part.

Re:I have two

[Anonymous Coward]

In this regard I am happy to be in the have-not camp.
 
As a home worker I spend a lot of time with the family and when I am "out" I am blissfully unreachable.
 
..my wireless headset doesn't count as a mobile phone does it? :)

Re:I have two

[Radres]

So if cell phones are so important, why are we leaving control of them to these greedy pigs here in America? Imagine our potential that such a communications device could provide if it were open to the "supposedly" richest and best country in the world; land of the free home of the brave and all that.

So there's only 0.5 cell phones?

[Foerstner]

Or are their billions of human species besides Homo Sapiens?

Or...did they mean half the human population?

Re:So there's only 0.5 cell phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or are their...

See, this is why silly, pointless nitpicking isn't a sound strategy.

Re:So there's only 0.5 cell phones?

[wickedsteve]

The title also had me wondering how many species of humans there were. So what if the parent does not know the difference between there, their and they're?

Re:So there's only 0.5 cell phones?

[glwtta]

"Number of Cellphones Now Equal To Half the Human Species" is perfectly valid and unambiguous. I don't see how you can read it as "Half of Human Species".

Also, since we are nitpicking, it's Homo sapiens.

Re:So there's only 0.5 cell phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Number of Cellphones Now Equal To Half the Human Species" is perfectly valid and unambiguous.

I have to agree. It is unambiguously 0.5 cellphones.

Re:So there's only 0.5 cell phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes the parent dumb, that's what.

Next goal...

[TheMeuge]

Good for them. Now can they all please stop screaming into their phones as soon as my train comes up to the surface. Because if I have to endure one more time of "you won't believe what that bitch said to me" at 100dB and 6 inches away from my ear, I might snap.

Re:Next goal...

[beav007]

And then, under your breath, you're all like, "bitches"...

Re:Next goal...

[TooMuchToDo]

Oh, snap!

Re:Next goal...

[PMoonlite]

Now can they all please stop screaming into their phones as soon as my train comes up to the surface.

Do what I do. Just join in on the conversation as if you were obviously intended to be included.

OCPC?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Perhaps One Cellphone Per Child is a more useful goal than OLPC? Much cheaper and likely far more useful.

Re:OCPC?

[Alexx K]

I don't think this would be proffitable, as a huge amount of cell towers would have to be built and maintained. Not to mention, it is easier to lose or steal a cell phone than a laptop.

Re:OCPC?

[explosivejared]

Perhaps One Cellphone Per Child is a more useful goal than OLPC? Much cheaper and likely far more useful.

I don't think this is what you meant by it, but cell phones are being used to jumpstart communications infrastructure in the third world. It's much cheaper to go wireless from the start than to build a grid. I would expect the ratio to jump tremendously in the coming decade. The greater part of Africa will probably be built upon a wireless paradigm in telephony.

Re:OCPC?

[Alexx K]

The OLPC was mainly designed to educate kids. It'll be pretty difficult to educate kids when they're shouting into their cell phones, or sending text messages.

omg ths sks were out of brd.

Note: I don't speak textspeak.

Re:OCPC?

[BigDogCH]

One Iphone Per Child then.

Re:OCPC?

[SmlFreshwaterBuffalo]

I think the idea was to teach kids to type with more than just their thumbs.

Re:OCPC?

[fm6]

Cheaper? Did you forget that cell phones have a recurring cost?

"Likely" more useful? How? Can you use it to read a book? Do your homework? Write software? The OLPC does all these things.

Re:OCPC?

[Auraiken]

Oh man. The ROAMING costs would be INSANNEEE.

Re:OCPC?

[renegadesx]

I can see it now. In China to compete with India, they use cellphones to bribe children into becoming those annoying "survey people"

phone rings

You: Hello?

7 year old: Good morning I was wondering if you would like to save 20% on your energy bill

hang up

phone rings

You: Hello?

7 year old: WAAAAAAAAAA!

Re:OCPC?

[TooMuchToDo]

You're correct. The cost of copper is at a point where it's cheaper to just put towers up and let wireless be the last mile (or several miles, depending on topography).

Re:OCPC?

[mpe]

You're correct. The cost of copper is at a point where it's cheaper to just put towers up and let wireless be the last mile (or several miles, depending on topography).

Copper is also vulnerable to people stealing the cables to sell as scrap metal.

Re:OCPC?

[Mutant321]

Exactly. It's easy to forget that a huge proportion (majority?) of the world's population lives in some degree of poverty. From their point of view, it's not the Internet that's been the revolution in the last decade or so, it's cell phones and satellite TV. These are two technologies that the western world has had in slightly different forms for half a century (or more), are relatively cheap from an infrastructure point of view, and scale extremely well to large populations. The Internet is too expensive in comparison, both to build the infrastructure, and for the end user.

We're only just beginning to understand the impact these technologies are having on our global society. What effect will the spread of all this information have? Most people haven't really even thought about it, let alone attempted to answer the question.

Re:OCPC?

[moosesocks]

How about food and vaccines?

And what the hell is the deal with the whole "per child" bit? Sure, it's fashionable to help save the children, but the last time I checked, there were quite a few adults and families that needed help too. If we're going to be sending mobile phones down, I'd give them to responsible adults first, and if we're sending laptops, "one or two per teacher" sounds like it'd be a whole lot more practical...

I'm sorry to troll, but this sort of popular "faux-philanthropy" is really starting to get under my skin.

I, for one

[noidentity]

I, for one, thank those in the 59 countries who have more than one cellphone so that I don't have to have one of those damn things.

Re:I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think, if people had more than two ears there would be even more cellphones out there. I dunno how people can function with a phone glued to each ear though.

Re:I, for one

[Sporkinum]

I concur with that statement and raise you a hell yeah! I am very happy to not be in contact 24x7.

Re:I, for one

[The One and Only]

FACT: Cell phones come with an "off" switch.

Re:I, for one

[MilesAttacca]

Of course, if you have a cell phone, people will not understand why you would ever want to turn it off. Me, I'm cell-phone-free and quite happy about it. We need to keep pay phones.

I've hate telephones ever since I was in the Navy

[shoor]

I had a job in the Navy where I was on the phone all the time. I realize
phones are useful, and I still use them, but I kind of cringe when I see
people driving and talking, or jaywalking and talking. And whenever I
happen to overhear a snippet of conversation is usually something like,
"Oh I'm on xyz street, where are you?"

I still need my quiet time, my time when I'm left alone, to think or chill.

Oh, and I'm not writing poetry with these line breaks. I spent many years
pounding on manual typewriters, and years on 80x24 character display
terminals, DEC VT-100s and various Hazeltine models mostly. It feels weird
not to hit that carriage return on a regular basis.

and in other news...

[zappepcs]

Hello and 'can you hear me' are the first two phrases that people learn when learning a new language. I remember the days when it was "I'll have another drink please" and "where is the bathroom", followed closely by "what's your sign?"

Re:and in other news...

[gfilion]

Hello and 'can you hear me' are the first two phrases that people learn when learning a new language. I remember the days when it was "I'll have another drink please" and "where is the bathroom", followed closely by "what's your sign?"

Hey, I only know two sentences in swedish:

Du har vakra ögon
Vil du älska med mej?

I'll let the scandinavian folks translate that (and find the dozen spelling mistakes I must have made...)

Better than landline infrastructure

[dal20402]

There's a reason this growth has happened and will continue.

Developing countries are going straight to cell networks rather than bothering with landlines. The infrastructure is far cheaper (no last-mile problem) andthe technology is more convenient for users. That's a win-win if ever there was one.

As still-mostly-undeveloped areas in Africa, Asia, and South America continue making progress, so will this industry. Time to go buy some stock.

And for those Luddites proudly proclaiming their cellphone-free status: Your position is nonsense. The cell phone is cheaper than your landline (if you get the right plan). And it comes with the ability to carry it, if you like. Here's a hint: you don't have to carry it all the time, and you don't have to have the phone or the ringer on if you don't want to. I think you all are just being willfully obtuse because you don't like the kind of people you associate with cellphones.

I haven't had a landline in nine years, since I got rid of dialup. I just can't see the point.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

In British Columbia, Canada having a cellphone is *NOT* cheaper than having a landline. That's why I don't have one. When Telus, Rogers, et al quits shafting us, then I'll probably get one.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[solios]

...or some of us are just being "willfully obtuse" because either:

A. We can't afford another bill, no matter how "cheap" other people claim it to be.

or

B. We're sick to death of overhearing half of loud inconsiderate conversations on the bus, waiting for the bus, on the streat, in line at the store, etc. and can't fathom being that willfully obtuse to our fellow man.

I'd carry a celphone distruptor before I'd cary a celphone. No plans to hassle with, no monthly bills. Just the occasional battery and the certain knowledge of a little peace and quiet (or at least some reflected frustration) when some asshat starts bellowing NO NO YOU'RE BREAKING UP I CAN'T HEAR YOU AUGH in the middle of rush hour.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[Vthornheart]

Actually, I save the expenses in general by not owning a phone at all. No cell phone, no landline.
Yes, if I need to call 9-11 for an emergency I'm pretty much fucked. And I can see the benefits of Cell phone (and normal phone) use. I can trust that, with all the cell phones around in the world, I'll be able to find someone within 50 feet of me that has one I can use should the emergency need ever arise. So far, that assumption has proven to be quite true.
If it turns out not to be one day... well, then I'll take whatever happens as a result. My fault for being a miserly poor bastard that had to choose between paying for internet or paying for phone, and chose the one he found to be less annoying and more useful for day-to-day operations.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[Alexx K]

Here's some good news on that front.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[Cecil]

Canada's mobile phone providers suck ass

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

B. We're sick to death of overhearing half of loud inconsiderate conversations on the bus, waiting for the bus, on the streat, in line at the store, etc. and can't fathom being that willfully obtuse to our fellow man. Amen bother. I carry my cell phone with me everywhere, but it stays off unless I'm making a call (AAA, etc). It irritates the hell out of my when I'm with a friend and we're talking, then their phone rings. They pick up an talk on it for the next half hour like you're no longer there.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[insertwackynamehere]

I'd carry a celphone distruptor before I'd cary a celphone. Would you ever consider carrying a pocket dictionary maybe?

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[dal20402]

A. We can't afford another bill, no matter how "cheap" other people claim it to be.

My post was unclear. Sorry about that.

What I am saying is that you should replace your landline with a cell phone. Get rid of the landline bill altogether and replace it with a (probably lower, if you're not a heavy phone user) cell phone bill.

B. We're sick to death of overhearing half of loud inconsiderate conversations on the bus, waiting for the bus, on the streat, in line at the store, etc. and can't fathom being that willfully obtuse to our fellow man.

Why does carrying a cell phone imply that you'll engage in these behaviors? That's like saying that because I have a mouth I'm going to loudly belch in public.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[heinousjay]

I'm with you man, I can't believe it's still legal to talk in public. It's gotta be some sort of invasion of my rights as a human being to be forced to listen to other people talking, not able to ignore them, not able to mind my own business. If only I were allowed to choose what I paid attention to...

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[Sporkinum]

Are unlimited local calling cell phones cheaper than $15 month? Long distance is supplied by IP phones at either free for IP to IP or 1 or 2 cents a minute to a regular number.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a hint: you don't have to carry it all the time

We... can't fathom being that willfully obtuse to our fellow man.

But you can be that obtuse WITH THE WORDS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

And for those Luddites proudly proclaiming their cellphone-free status: Your position is nonsense. The cell phone is cheaper than your landline (if you get the right plan).

I have yet to see a cell phone plan that is as cheap as my landline is and that is of comparable quality. I can get a really exceedingly crappy network for less than my landline, but that's not acceptable.

Granted, landline prices keep going up, so that might change, but as of two months ago when I looked at new cell phone plans in the area (old contract is almost up), zero were cheaper than my home phone.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[fyoder]

The cell phone is cheaper than your landline (if you get the right plan).

Where do you live? I'm doubting it's in Canada. We have a government anti-competition board which exists to green light the buying up of smaller companies by larger (recently Fido by Rogers) so that collusion between them is easier. Right now the heads of the mobile phone companies could all meet together on a park bench. I'm not saying that they do. Not when they can easily afford the best restaurants.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[Lumpy]

The cell phone is cheaper than your landline (if you get the right plan).

really? I pay $37.00 a month for unlimited minutes on my landline no times for free weekend, no five I call anyone and everyone I want to (yes 100% of everyone I want to talk to is a local call). What company has that for a cellphone?

Just knocking holes in your price argument. cellphones are ALWAYS way more expensive than a landline. That is my biggest gripe.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

... A cellphone is cheaper than my current plan which includes a high speed cablemodem and a landline with unlimited free minutes to anywhere in the United States?

Where I live I honestly can't find a cellphone plan that works out cheaper. If you live in a really large metropolitan area, what you are saying is probably true; I might find a way to get a cheap cellphone. Out here in the one hundred square mile mix of Urban/Suburban/Rural Texas that I travel through, I can't seem to find one.

Of course, there's probably a lot of weight to the simple argument that cellphones are like politics. Those who have one point of view cannot FATHOM why someone wouldn't be like them.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[seededfury]

Even without service you can call 911... just plug in a phone.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[vux984]

A. We can't afford another bill, no matter how "cheap" other people claim it to be

You realize that you can often -cancel- your land line if you have a cell phone. Net cost to -switch- could be pretty close to zero, depending on your call habits.

B. We're sick to death of overhearing half of loud inconsiderate conversations on the bus, waiting for the bus, on the streat, in line at the store, etc. and can't fathom being that willfully obtuse to our fellow man.

By your logic you'd refuse to own a car because -some- drivers are idiots cut people off, tailgate, and otherwise make total asses of themselves. And you'd refuse to take the bus too because some riders are loud, dirty, inconsiderate jackasses.

Of course, just because some people are like that -you- don't have to be one of them. A LOT of people carry cellphones and never do this, because they are considerate enough to put them on silent/vibrate/off in their pocket, and don't place or accept calls in places where it would be rude.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[sanjosanjo]

My wife has got me in the habit of carrying a cellphone, now that we have kids and other responsibilities. They are convenient, but certainly not as good as landlines. I'm constantly annoyed at the audio delay when talking to somebody. And the frequency dropouts in the audio, along with the various Bluetooth headsets that give poor audio quality make the entire cell phone experience mostly annoying. I certainly agree that we could save money by going all wireless, but I don't see it as a replacement for landline yet.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[TooMuchToDo]

Until Verizon crushes them like they're doing to Vonage. Cell phone companies don't face this problem.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[TooMuchToDo]

Even if you have no landline service, you can dial 911 from a phone plugged in. It's mandated by the FCC. Same way with a cellphone. You can carry a cellphone around with no service, and it will still be able to dial 911.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

oh cool, theres one in my cellphone.

subsidiary.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[JasterBobaMereel]

So you don't have broadband?

Or Cable?

You actually try and use broadband via a Cellphone, at the slow and horribly costly rates they charge?

And why are you still using that old fashioned phone technology why are you not using VOIP and paying nothing for phone calls?

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[mpe]

I'd carry a celphone distruptor before I'd cary a celphone. No plans to hassle with, no monthly bills. Just the occasional battery

Together with a free ride in a real police car and a free tour of parts of a real police station if you should happen to get caught with it :)

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[flappinbooger]

There's nothing wrong with refusing to use a cell phone. You're not alone, and I'm sure you won't be alone for a long time. Why, in fact, there are people out there who STILL are refusing to drive cars and wire their houses for electricity and don't have indoor plumbing. They're even organized into an orderly society complete with rules, traditions and a strict religious code.

However, my "analogy" falls apart quickly, because I know for a fact that many Amish use cell phones...

Sorry.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[jez9999]

Developing countries are going straight to cell networks rather than bothering with landlines. The infrastructure is far cheaper (no last-mile problem) andthe technology is more convenient for users.

Right. Try getting a fast, low-latency internet connection without a wired connection, though. For the masses. You might find it a bit more difficult.

Re:Better than landline infrastructure

[Misagon]

I'd carry a celphone distruptor before I'd cary a celphone.

I'd rather carry a Klingon disruptor. With one of those I could get a cell phone user to shut up permanently.

Telcos suck as bad as the mobile companies!

[garcia]

"The mobile industry has constantly outperformed even the most optimistic forecasts for subscriber growth," Mark Newman, head of research at Informa said in a statement.

And the telcos constantly outperformed even the most dismal forecasts for subscriber growth by charging people for long distance service automatically because they didn't add a block onto their account (a $7 fee), they force them to have a telephone in order to get DSL, and they charge astronomical flat rates instead of going back to rate plans which are more reasonable for the amount of usage people require out of their landlines.

When my parents switched from having long distance on their landline (they have to get DSL as there's no cable where they just built) to use only their mobile phones I knew that time was up for the telcos.

More than one per person?

[freeweed]

Anyone from one of those 59 countries want to explain to me what exactly the point of a person having multiple cellphones is?

I love my phone to death and wouldn't dream of living without one, so I'm not the usual rabid anti-cellphone nutcase. But multiples??

Re:More than one per person?

[EMeta]

I don't, but service people at my office often have a phone the company pays for, and one of their own. The idea here being that customers can call their business phones, but they only get voice mail after a certain hour. Also, when they travel to other countries they like the company paying whatever charges might come up, but they don't want the company's bills detailing all their personal calls.

Re:More than one per person?

[Detritus]

Many people have a business and personal cell phone. Some people have a personal cell phone and another that's dedicated to talking to their secret boyfriend/girlfriend.

Re:More than one per person?

[LBArrettAnderson]

I can think of a few cases, but I can't imagine these cases making up for the babies/children who don't have cellphones.

Some people have a personal cell phone and one for work that is owned by the company. Also cell phones have kind of replaced radios at many jobs (my office has 3 or 4 cellphones for people who go out and about).

Re:More than one per person?

[Repton]

Apparently, many teenagers here have two phones, one from each major network, because it's the most cost-effective way of supporting their hundreds-per-day text habit..

Re:More than one per person?

[nesta]

So the person you're cheating on doesn't see or get the calls from the person you're cheating with.

Re:More than one per person?

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

Easy. Lets imagine you are an metal worker. At work you want to maybe use an simpler, roughed and cheaper phone, and when you are in private, you have more advanced and expensive smart phone. Or you could have one cellphone with work number that you use at office hours, and another one that you use in private. Either way, as new services like multisim, which allows you to have multiple phones with the same account and number, people for surely will have more and more phones.

Re:More than one per person?

[insertwackynamehere]

Apparently you've never heard of unlimited texting (a cheap alternative to two cell phone bills) and would rather troll

Re:More than one per person?

[RazboiniKSS]

Here in my country (Colombia)
minutes are more expensive to another carriers, sometimes 3x more expensive
so is cheaper to have 2 or 3 phones depending on whom you need to talk with.
some people just use 1 phone and have 3 sim cards
(most phones are unlocked, or can be unlocked easily)

Re:More than one per person?

[Repton]

Perhaps I should have been more clear about where "here" is. I live in New Zealand. I don't text enough to follow prices closely, but neither network here offers unlimited texting (Telecom used to, but they stopped -- presumably it was too expensive).

I think Vodafone offers or used to offer unlimited texts to other Vodafone mobiles on weekends, but Telecom was more cost-effective during the day. The vast majority of teenages here are on prepay plans, so there is no monthly bill; the only cost is the cost of the phone (a couple of hundred, say). A hundred texts will cost you $20 at standard prepay rates, so if you do send hundreds a day, it could be worth maintaining two numbers. I wouldn't do it, but then my teenage years are sadly behind me..

Re:More than one per person?

[YU5333021]

I have 50 cellphones myself. Now before you hang up hear me out... 49 of those are prepaid phones, and only one is on a plan.

I only give out the number to one of the prepaid phones.
That phone is set to auto-forward to the next prepaid phone.
The next prepaid phone is set the same way, and so on...
At the end of the chain is my phone that has a plan and is on my persons at all times.
All the 49 forwarding phones are also set up to give out a brief sound and to flash when forwarding a call
I have the 49 cellphones hung up like coo coo clocks all around my living room...
When the lights are dim, if someone ever calls me, my pad becomes the coolest disco dance floor you've ever seen!!!

What I'm getting at........ disposable prepaid cards... think organized crime... a five dollar card will get you at least a guaranteed 3 month service. Some of the highest profile mobsters are notorious for disposing the phone after one single call...

This, and this alone is the reason for such skewed numbers. And they look blatantly skewed.

Re:More than one per person?

[Anonymous Coward]

pics or it didn't happen

Re:More than one per person?

[The One and Only]

Are you kidding? Babies have cellphones. Right when they're born, they're signed up with a 2 year contract and a free phone, right after they're registered with the state and with Social Security. And now that you can take your number with you when you switch providers, there's no downside!

Re:More than one per person?

[mastershake_phd]

Where can you get a prepaid phone good for 3 months for $5?

Re:More than one per person?

[GameboyRMH]

I knew a guy who was a DJ and he had *three* cell phones, and carried them all at once. This was completely incomprehensible so I asked him why he could possibly need three phones.

He said it was to save on carrier-to-carrier calls, and also that no one phone could hold all of his contacts (yeah right)

So I can only conclude that the purpose of having multiple cell phones is either:

- As an ego-booster
- As a crutch for people who have all their contacts stuck on some ancient phone with no way to get them off.

Re:More than one per person?

[thalassinos]

Anecdotal evidence:

A friend of mine has a land surveying firm. He has four employees. For each employee he has a company mobile phone plus their own personal phone. Each employee uses a GPS land surveying instrument (leica) which needs to exchange data with their office (has something to do with increased accuracy of the GPS device). Also each employee has a tablet laptop with a 3G data card. At the office he uses 4 GSM data modems. He pays (at my suggestion) an additional $8 per month for the GSM lines used for the GSM instrument and the GSM data modem so that all phonecalls/data between them are free. Plus, he also has 2 mobiles (one for work, the other for personal use) and a laptop with a 3G data card.

So for 5 persons, 23 mobile phone accounts exist.

I thought I was the only one

[Vampyre_Dark]

Who didn't have a cell phone. I can't imagine why some people would need two of them for?

Re:I thought I was the only one

[Skuldo]

Work and home, prehaps.

Re:I thought I was the only one

[Vampyre_Dark]

How about front and back (vibrate)?

Re:I thought I was the only one

[More_Cowbell]

My first cell phone is my only 'home' phone. No land line needed.
The second one is paid for by my employer. Like hell am I going to do work email and be on call with a blackberry *I* pay for.

Interestingly enough many of my friends (and my girlfriend) are the same way. And my friends are adults (30's, 40's mostly).

Re:I thought I was the only one

[meringuoid]

Simon David 'Sick Boy' Williamson notoriously had three phones. One for men, one for women he was trying to have sex with, one for women he had already had sex with.

Re:I thought I was the only one

[kramulous]

I gave in just recently. I think the important thing is to refuse to give the phone number out. My girlfriend, my dad and my brother are the only people that have it (and I have sworn statements [signed in blood] that they are not to forward the number ... sorry, haha, little joke. No friends!). My carrier gives me to opportunity to choose whether to show my number when I call (caller id) ... clearly that 'feature' is disabled.
Sure, people get a little pissed that I don't give to them, taking it as an insult. But you only have to show tough love at the start.

Re:I thought I was the only one

[the_humeister]

Wife and mistress perhaps?

Re:I thought I was the only one

[AnonChef]

And I would never answer a call from someone with a hidden number.
It's a rude and mostly used by telemarketers.

I have too much to do to even consider talking to persons who hide who they are.
Would you open the door to someone hiding their face?

Gentlemen, our end is nigh!

[4D6963]

Number of cellphones : half the number of humans
Number of women : half the number of humans

Let's see, men can hardly give them pleasure for more than 10 minutes, and we hardly can be arsed to listen to them unless an instance of giving them barely 10 minutes of pleasure hasn't occurred yet. Cellphones can vibrate on demand for hours on end, and women enjoy talking to them for hours too!

Let's face it, we are obsoleted by our technology, and now that there is one cell phone available for every single woman, they no more have a reason to let us live! It's only a matter of time before their collective intelligence realises this and decides to do away with us and for good! We are doomed!! Our only hope of survival is to kill them one by one before they kill us all! WHY ARE YOU STILL SITTING ON YOUR DAMN CHAIR, GET UP AND GO KILL YOUR GIRLFRIEND BEFORE SHE KILLS YOU!!!

Oh, well, that's for the ones among us who have one, of course.. meh.

Re:Gentlemen, our end is nigh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to become gay. (Personally, I'm glad I already am.)

Re:Gentlemen, our end is nigh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Women... collective intelligence...

You're funny!

Re:Gentlemen, our end is nigh!

[Viceroy Potatohead]

You've convinced me... I'm dressing up as a cellphone next halloween. Any cellphones out there with a lower front dongle near the microphone to model my costume on, dya think?

Re:Gentlemen, our end is nigh!

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is too personal, I understand, but I'm conducting a survey and would like to know your answer to the following:

Do you use the Apple Mac operating system?

Thanks.

Re:Gentlemen, our end is nigh!

[The One and Only]

Since your argument is predicated on men being unable to pleasure women for any longer than 10 minutes, it appears that I will have no problem under the new order. Sucks for you, though.

Re:Gentlemen, our end is nigh!

[4D6963]

it appears that I will have no problem under the new order.

Congratulations, glad for you! Loser..

inevitable?

[mackil]

"For children growing up today the issue is not whether they will get a mobile phone, it's a question of when"

Not in my house! If my kids want cell phones, they will have to pay for it themselves, after passing a stringent exam and physical fitness test. And even after that I will probably say no.

911 the only reason for land lines

[slew]

I haven't had a landline in nine years, since I got rid of dialup. I just can't see the point

If you have ever had an emergency, run for the nearest land line (or program the local police department's emergency number into your cell phone).

Just the other day at work, one of my co-workers collapsed on the floor and started convulsing (as we found out later from diabetic shock). Everyone in the immediate vicinity dialed 911 on their cell phones and got put in a queue (this is california and I think all 911's go to the state patrol first). I hung up the cell and picked up the nearest land line and dialed 911 and got a local 911 operator right away and she called for an ambulance which came about 5 minutes later. Next time, I'm going to reach for the land-line first...

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[lukas84]

That's because America's emergency call system sucks.

Routing calls from cellphones works nicely here in Switzerland. The Mobile phone towers know where you are...

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[Dirtside]

911 isn't the only reason. My cellphone doesn't get good reception from the back of my house (no one's does), but that's where I spend most of my time. So if I want to talk to someone for an extended period while I'm in front of my computer, I have to be in the back of my house... where cell reception is bad. Hence, landline.

Also, landline cordless phone batteries last a hell of a lot longer than a cellphone battery does, so I just put on my cordless landline headset and talk for hours. (Without using up any minutes or draining my relatively short-lived cellphone battery.)

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[moosesocks]

If that's not FUD, I don't know what is.

If you've got to dial 911, use the closest fucking phone you can find (and do *not* leave the victim unless it's absolutely necessary).

It's also an egregious abuse of the system for everyone in the room to dial 911 simultaneously. Think about the implications you might be causing...

I can't find a shred of evidence anywhere stating that the 911 system today will intentionally route calls differently based upon if they were placed via a landline or a mobile phone. Given that there may be more than one PSAP within an exchange, it's certainly possible that two nearby phones will get routed differently. However, it's both stupid and dangerous to suggest that based upon your one anecdotal experience, that there's a special low-priority 911 call center reserved for mobile phone users.

Thanks to E-911, you should hypothetically be routed to the call center nearest to the tower you're calling from. If the operator's got E-911 Phase II implemented, they'll even know your exact location. I've seen it in operation, and it's an absolutely fantastic system that has the very obvious potential to save many lives.

Given the spotty reliability of mobile phones in some buildings and rural areas, I'd agree that a landline is superior to a mobile phone if you have the two choices laid out directly in front of you. However, there's definitely no mobile-phone-punishment-queue at the 911 office.

(Another relevant tip that probably saved the life of a close friend: If you're traveling into the backcountry, make sure your party is carrying at least two phones. You get redundancy in case something happens to the guy carrying the phone, and the CDMA and GSM networks in the US often don't overlap in rural areas. Verizon/Sprint are CDMA, whilst AT&T, T-Mobile, and most of the rest are on GSM. You never know where you're going to get a signal, and carrying both types of phone will greatly increase your chances of finding one. This is also assuming you're not traveling alone, which is just plain reckless)

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

If you have ever had an emergency, run for the nearest land line The last time that I had to dial the emergency number was on a motorway bridge a good few miles from anywhere (someone had just turned a car over on the opposite carriageway). Running for the nearest landline would have been quote a jog.

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[SeaFox]

Everyone in the immediate vicinity dialed 911 on their cell phones and got put in a queue (this is california and I think all 911's go to the state patrol first). I hung up the cell and picked up the nearest land line and dialed 911 and got a local 911 operator right away and she called for an ambulance which came about 5 minutes later.

So how is this the cell phone's fault? The problem is your state has some dumb call routing procedures.

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[LordEd]

Everyone in the immediate vicinity dialed 911 on their cell phones and got put in a queue

Are you saying that the 911 provider for the cell service is likely to put you in a queue, or that the mass number of cell phones caused a queue? If you mean it caused it, then at least one person who called got through.

There are some cases where a land line is not readily accessible. I have called 911 on a cell several times and have never been queued. One time was to report a hit + run. I was on the line reporting the current position of the guy as we followed them (I don't think they realized we were). After about 5 minutes, the police were pulling him over.

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[Movi]

I know youre talking US here, but over here we have 112 - which is a 3-in-1 ambulance, police and fire dept number. And it's specific for cellphones. Does the US have a mobile-specific emergency number? Maybe that was the problem?

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[old and new again]

in quebec there is *4141 (at least on highways) to call police forces

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[MichaelSmith]

112 - which is a 3-in-1 ambulance, police and fire dept number. And it's specific for cellphones

I don't think it is. I have heard of european phone techs accidently pulse dialing 112 when they make a connection because it is easy to make a few taps.

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW the emergancy number in New Zealand is 111
(and has been for at least 40 years so it certainly predates cell phones and touch tone dialing.)
When I first heard there was a TV show called "Rescue 911" I thought it must have been about a couple of paramedic driving around in a Porsche

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[Anonymous Coward]

I work on E-911 systems.

I can't find a shred of evidence anywhere stating that the 911 system today will intentionally route calls differently based upon if they were placed via a landline or a mobile phone. In California, calls from mobile phones are not sent to the local PSAP. Instead, they are routed to one of two highway patrol-affiliated PSAPs. So, essentially, all cell phone 911 calls in Northern California are all routed to a PSAP in the East Bay somewhere (I believe).

Thanks to E-911, you should hypothetically be routed to the call center nearest to the tower you're calling from. If the operator's got E-911 Phase II implemented, they'll even know your exact location. I've seen it in operation, and it's an absolutely fantastic system that has the very obvious potential to save many lives. E-911 Phase II is amazing, if it ever becomes widely used. Sadly, the FCC isn't going to mandate its use anytime soon, so most of the time PSAPs don't have much of an idea of the location of a caller.

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in New Zealand they dial 111 rather than 911, I think it is the same for Australia as well.

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[Mspangler]

"Thanks to E-911, you should hypothetically be routed to the call center nearest to the tower you're calling from."

The key word didn't even notice was "hypothetically".

"Given the spotty reliability of mobile phones in some buildings and rural areas," is another point, though not applicable in the stated case. When I'm on call, the company cell phone gives 1 bar of signal strength inside, 2 bars outside.

Cheapest Cell phone plan I can find here is about $30/month. Landline, $25/month. So cell phones are not cheaper, not better quality, and the "yak while moving" aspects are not to my advantage.

So we are staying on the wires until Verizon gets tired of fixing them. Admittedly, that could be any time now. Then we'll have to find something with an external antenna. A base-station cell phone? I wonder if there is such a thing?

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[Vombatus]

Triple zero (000) in Australia, not 111 or 911

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[gwbennett]

I am a 911 dispatcher in Kansas. In CA, ALL cell calls go to CHP, which was common in many states before W911 phases I and II were rolled out. It's somewhat absurd that they still do that. I hope people don't see your post and hang up next time they are in a 911 ACD queue on their cell phone, and dial back from their landline. That would only delay their call further, and doubly so. When you call and hang up, the other end of your call continues ringing into the PSAP, until it is answered. Then that call will be called back before the landline call is answered. It's very counterproductive to hang up and call back. Especially since most people don't answer when you call them back from 911, since they don't recognize the number on the CID.

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[ToBeContinued]

Maybe you are looking for something similar to a cell phone signal booster?

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[Anonymous Coward]

with all due respect: Bollocks, 112 isnt mobile specific

112 is the european-wide universal emergency number, having one number for mobile phones and a seperate one for landlines would be idiotic, and even if they did, all us european citizens would know about that second landline number.

on a side note, ive seen mobile phones which, when powered up without the sim-card (no registered phone number), offer a single option (often one of those softkeys) on the main menu screens for calling the emergency number

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[lachlan76]

Apparently it's mandated by the GSM spec, so it's understandable that people outside of the EU would believe that it was mobile-specific.

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[Aidtopia]

I can't find a shred of evidence anywhere stating that the 911 system today will intentionally route calls differently based upon if they were placed via a landline or a mobile phone.

In California, 911 from a cellular phone is routed to a central dispatch center run by the California Highway Patrol. 911 from a landline typically goes to a traditional 911 dispatch center run by a local law enforcement agency.

Cellular 911

Our crime prevention coordinator for our Neighborhood Watch confirmed this and suggested programming the local police department's emergency number into our cell phones.

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[moosesocks]

1) If you just want emergency calls, any mobile phone or landline will get through to 911 regardless of whether or not you pay the bill. I don't think you even need to have a SIM in a GSM handset in order to make the call. Literally any device capable of making a call connected to any American telephone network should be able to call 911.

2) Not to turn this into a mudslinging contest, but I clearly addressed your point. If you're given both options (and there's no reason for you *not* to be if you're indoors, given #1 above), I would indeed reach for the landline due to the reliability issues you mention -- ditto for making regular calls! However, if reaching the landline entails leaving the victim, I would use the mobile. Once you're connected, there shouldn't be much of a difference.

And the "hypothetical" I used would be in the case where the cell tower is in a different PSAP area than your building is. At the very worst, you'll be routed to the call center for the next town over, which would be just as equipped to handle your emergency. In that case, the odds of you being put on hold are a crapshoot depending upon which call center is busy.

Throwing your landline away is foolish for any number of reasons, and I certainly would recommend keeping it around in the event of an emergency, and using it instead of a cell phone if you've got both on hand. However, if you're not near a landline, and have a signal on your mobile, there's no reason to be paranoid about using it to cal 911.

And please, only make one call.

Re:911 the only reason for land lines

[moosesocks]

That page was last updated in 1997, so I'm not 100% sure it's up to date.

From Wikipedia:

Dialing 9-1-1 from a mobile phone (Cellular/PCS) in the United States originally reached the state police or highway patrol, instead of the local public safety answering point (PSAP). The caller had to describe his/her exact location so that the agency could transfer the call to the correct local emergency services. This happens because the exact location of the cellular phone isn't normally transmitted with the voice call.

In 2000 the FCC issued an order requiring wireless carriers to determine and transmit the location of callers who dial 9-1-1. They set up a phased program: Phase I transmitted the location of the receiving antenna for 9-1-1 calls, while Phase II transmitted the location of the calling telephone. The order set up certain accuracy requirements and other technical details, and milestones for completing the implementation of wireless location services. Subsequent to the FCC's order, many wireless carriers requested waivers of the milestones, and the FCC granted many of them. As of mid-2005, the process of Phase II implementation is generally underway, but limited by the complexity of coordination required between wireless carriers, PSAPs, local telephone companies and other affected government agencies, and the limited funding available to local agencies for the conversion of PSAP equipment to display the location data (usually on computerized maps).

I'm not 100% sure, but this seems to suggest that the bit about the highway patrol might no longer be true, although I *am* referencing Wikipedia, which means it should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

That said, if they know your exact (lat/lon) location, they're just as equipped to help you out as anybody else is, and since it's a big centralized call center, they're theoretically less likely to be overwhelmed with calls than a small local call center would be.

(I also didn't even know that police stations *had* their own actively monitored emergency numbers any more -- AFAIK, the ones in my area were phased out in order to encourage the adoption of 911, and make more efficient use of resources by not requiring a person in each town to stand by the phone 24/7. In the rural area where I live, local emergency services are dispatched by a country operator at night so that every single station doesn't need to keep a very bored person on call all night...)

Anyway

[El Lobo]

Anyway, believe it or not the major problem with this incredible number of cell phones, GPS devices, wireless routers etc is the so called "ether pollution".

This is NOT about health problems (tumors, camncer, etc) which, even if there are some theories, there is NOTHING definitively proved. The prolem is more of a technical nature. The number of frequencies, interferences, garbage signals, etc is nowdays alarming.

And there are also theories that say that this chaos is contributing to the global warming, but this is also debatable. Anyway, if you compare our planet today, this chaotic sea of signals is a BIG change from the "clean planet" we had 200 years back in the past.

Re:Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

If by signals you mean 'light', I guess you're more easily understood to be a fucking idiot.

Re:Anyway

[mikael]

There were dangers back then and now. Sunlight has been proved to be damaging to your body; sunburn - the amount of UV radiation from the sunlight has caused damage to your cells equivalent to being burnt by hot water (which in turn is emitting infra-red radiation a.k.a. as heat). Stand too close to a hot object and you will also damage your body.

Not forgetting the hazards of the early X-ray equipment (many shoe stores used to have novelty X-ray machines that allowed children to view X-rays of their feet).

Out of curiousity, does anyone have a comparison of the electromagnetic spectrum in somewhere extremely remote (eg. desert in Nevada) against the "electro-smog polluted" urban areas? The optical frequencies will probably be lower (less glare due to the shadows caused by buildings).

There are places in cities which are free from "electro-smog". Most basements won't allow cellphone operation. One of our technicians set up his office in the most remote corner of our building - it didn't even have a telephone - so he could get on with his work uninterrupted.

Re:Anyway

[Hyperspite]

You are aware that the sun, earth, the human body, and just about everything shoots light right?

In Soviet Amerika...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Amerika cell phones control YOU.

Fonejacker

[Colourspace]

Great - expanding out into the even wilder world. 'Hellloooo saaaah. If I can just have you bank account number and your sort code we will wire the monies to you. $86M Ugandan dollars... Yes.. That's $32 and 69 cents... But it is totally legitmaaaate'

Re:I've hate telephones ever since I was in the Na

[Donniedarkness]

While I agree completely that some people shouldn't drive and talk on the phone, I've never really had that problem. These are generally the people that shouldn't be driving in the first place.

I fail to see how it is different from driving a stick-shift with a friend in the car.

The upcoming robot wars.

[w3woody]

So, are cell phones the advanced scouts for the upcoming and inevitable Robot Wars?

The future of computing

[FridayBob]

For years I've been predicting that cellphones are destined to become the future of computing. They are the most powerful computers that we carry with us all the time, every day. Thus, as they gain more memory and processing power, it may become possible for them to one day host a voice activated user interface. Depending on how sophisticated that becomes (critics will claim that this will require nothing less than a true AI) the applications will be limitless and the GUI will become passe. I think that not long after people are able to dictate letters and other documents, we'll see interest in PC software in general start to slump. Just one thing: let's hope it will be Open Source, because whoever starts this will almost certainly become the next Microsoft.

Re:The future of computing

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there are already quite a few phones that are voice-activated now...unsure of how useful that feature is, because I don't use it, myself. It would be weird to be able to 'speak' an e-mail message, then send it off with only your voice...

Re:The future of computing

[jo42]

Great, now instead of one or two butt wipes yacking inanely into their cell phones on a bus, subway car or train, everyone will be yammering at them pointlessly. Mebbe I could make mucho pesos selling ear plugs...

Still want to kick Martin Cooper in the gonads for inventing the damn technology in the first place.

Re:The future of computing

[maxume]

It is much more likely that some successor to bluetooth will have the bandwidth to support high resolution video and the difference between a cell phone and a pc will become moot. Throw in the trend towards terabyte flash drives(my six month old, $20, 2GB keychain drive is ~20 gigabytes per cubic inch, so 1 terabyte isn't all that ridiculous, just sort of far in the future) and you have a pretty nice situation.

Re:The future of computing

[noidentity]

For years I've been predicting that cellphones are destined to become the future of computing. They are the most powerful computers that we carry with us all the time, every day.

I prefer to carry around a much more powerful bowling-ball sized computer atop my neck.

Re:The future of computing

[Anonymous Coward]

And I've long said that cellphones will be the first widespread videophones out there. Hell, nearly every single one already has the capability--we just need the bandwidth.

Re:The future of computing

[Niten]

The reason that the PC did so well is widely accepted to be the platform's open nature, thanks to Compaq and the other IBM-PC clones. The hardware, operating system, and software were all, to the greatest reasonable extent, interoperable and interchangeable; this resulted in a thriving marketplace of ideas that drove the whole platform forward.

We haven't seen this in the cell phone world yet, especially in the US, because of the closed nature of the system. Up to the present, network carriers, cell phone hardware, and mobile operating systems are locked together. Users and developers aren't free to have their way with the system; worse, your cellular network operator often has the ability to remotely override your software and do nasty things like install roving bugs for the FBI. The phone can't become a universal computing platform to rival the PC until control is handed over to users and third-party developers.

In this regard, the iPhone is a step in exactly the wrong direction. But overall, I think the industry is headed the right way: Just recently we saw news that Verizon plans to open its network to third-party devices. And Google's Linux and Java-based Android could be exactly the software platform we've all been waiting for. The times are a-changin'...

Re:The future of computing

[insertwackynamehere]

I thought this comment was hilarious before I even "got" it :P (Yes I didn't get you meant your head for a good 15 seconds after reading it and still cracked up IRL)

Re:The future of computing

[FridayBob]

Ha! That will be nothing more than a local problem: the bandwidth available between the cell phone computer and any peripheral components, such as a pair of display goggles. The real problem will be increasing the bandwidth between cell phone nodes: this is where the damned telcos will be responsible for limiting our bandwidth. For instance, at least in the beginning, we will, for example, be forced to pay hefty subscription fees for the privilege of being able to see (live) through the cameras that are built into other people's display goggles.

Re:The future of computing

[maxume]

My own life if boring enough. I don't need to keep up with the inanities of someone else's, so no one will be forcing me to pay for that.

And really, if they can't fit the video display into a contact lens, I don't want it anywhere near my face. I don't think people will be real quick to give up video walls and keyboards either(at this point, a relatively big screen, a keyboard, and a mouse are sort of the defining hardware characteristics of a pc).

Re:The future of computing

[FridayBob]

... I don't need to keep up with the inanities of someone else's, ...

Forget private use; think professional first. Imagine a novice getting into trouble in the field, and then calling an expert to ask him, for example, what kind of equipment he's looking at and what he should do next. Instead of explaining things to the expert, the guy just looks at the equipment through the novice's cell-phone peripheral cameras and then tells him what to do. This would be great for technicians, doctors, scientists, etc. People would no longer have to call up to say, "I think you should come here and see this"; they could just show it to them. The possibilities are endless.

... I don't think people will be real quick to give up video walls and keyboards either ...

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to give up my PC, but I can imagine myself using a PC and the cell-phone computer together (something I already do that to a limited extent). However, if the developments I forsee come to pass, I can imagine younger generations making increasing use of cell-phone computers and eventually not using PCs at all; like the kids these days who prefer SMS and IRC as opposed to email.

Re:The future of computing

[maxume]

I didn't state it directly, but part of what I meant was that people, in general, are not going to abandon screens and keys for voice interfaces. Voice/audio would be handy in lots of places, but it is too damn awkward for dealing with text.

Re:The future of computing

[AngryLlama]

Or, maybe one day we could shake our cellphones to tell how many messages we have.

Re:The future of computing

[The One and Only]

Nonsense. I can always tell that people who seriously think voice-driven UI's will displace all other forms of input either haven't seriously written anything in their lives, or are probably extremely poor writers. I'm not just saying this because I'm the quiet writer type--even the most chatty and extraverted people on earth (teenage girls) prefer using the world's worst keyboards to communicate with each other than actually speaking. Just in this very comment I was able to change the thrust of my argument and carefully consider what I was going to say instead of verbally leading you down each false path that came to mind as I thought. Were I speaking to you, or dictating this post into the computer, it would have been more of a struggle. And if it's easier to compose a well-worded Slashdot comment by keyboard than by voice, imagine a dissertation.

Re:The future of computing

[FridayBob]

I agree that keyboards and graphical interfaces are great for composing and transforming one's thoughts into text. I personally will probably be doing it that way for the rest of my life, because I'm so comfortable with the medium (even though I'm not a touch-typist). However, you should not underestimate how this kind of technology and gadgetry is capable of influencing subsequent generations of computer users, less and less of whom will be burdened with our preference for keyboards, mice and screens. As their cell-phone computers become more powerful, it's easy to imagine these younger folks preferring to use stuff like voice-activated word-processing software, particularly if it's meant to be used together with a pair of hi-res display glasses. If the glasses would also allow the system to sense hand gestures, then you'd not only be able to see what you're writing, but also point at things as well. For us old fogies, there would always be a virtual keyboard available, or the option to plug in a real one (the youngsters will laugh at both). I'm not quite sure yet what future programmers will consider the most efficient way to use this system to write new code, but I figure that where there's a will there's a way.

Who uses more than one Cellphone?

[Vthornheart]

I'm curious if Slashdot posters who own more than one cellphone can post here about WHY they have more than one.
As a person who's intentionally tried to avoid the devices (and thus owns none), I genuinely don't know why a person would ever need MORE than one. My choice not to own one is mostly due to stubborn anachronism, and I can see the usefulness of having one. But the article said that in some countries people on the average own more than one... why?

Re:Who uses more than one Cellphone?

[Trip Ericson]

Companies. You have your personal phone, plus a phone the company pays for so you don't use your own personal minutes for company business.

Re:Who uses more than one Cellphone?

[ipsi]

In the case of New Zealand, where I live, there's only two Cellphone Companies - Vodafone and Telecom. Telecom has a nice deal where prepay users can text up to 500 texts for NZ$10/month (this is damn, damn good by NZ standards), and that's for either Vodafone or Telecom numbers. It also has up to 2000 for the same price, provided you're only texting to Telecoms network. Vodafone, on the other hand, does not like letting people text to Telecoms network, and as such many people will own both to take advantage of good deals that specifically target each network. And so that their friends who only own a cellphone on, say, Vodafones network, can text them cheaply. A good example: Person A has Vodafone and Telecom so they can have Vodafones BestMate for their partner (who must also be on Vodafone), which allows unlimited calling, texting and video calling, and have Telecom for texting to all their friends. I personally don't, but there are more cellphones in my house than people, so there we go. There's other reasons as well. You may have a Vodafone for going overseas (Telecom is CDMA :(), and Telecom for local texts. I suspect that most people who own two mobile phones for personal use are on prepay, not on contracts, so calling is hideously expensive (NZ$0.89/minute).

Re:Who uses more than one Cellphone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I have more than one cell phone. 1 is strictly for business, and I have 2 for personal use. That means weekends I'm only reachable by family/friends, and it also means that if a 'personal' phone rings while at work, it's something important.
Now, for the 2 personal use phones, I hate that, actually, but, believe it or not, I'm saving A LOT of money by using a phone from each of the mayor carriers (in Mexico): with my Iusa I can call most of my family and friends for free (as they're all in Monterrey) and with the Telcel I'm communicated with most of Mexico city (where I am studing), since everyone here seems to love Telcel.
The thing is, Iusa lets you call other Iusas for free (wherever you/they are) and it's MUCH cheaper to call a Telcel from a Telcel. I know, EVERYONE ought to get a Iusa, then we'd all be calling each other for free [yeah, I pay a monthly fee, it's not technically free, nitpickers fuck off]. Hope that helps ;)

Re:Who uses more than one Cellphone?

[donut1005]

Does no one on here know anyone that has two? One for personal use and one for work? I've known of a few people who have that setup. It's a little different than having a home land line and a work land line because you have to actually carry the two phones, but it's not that different or unusual in concept.

Re:Who uses more than one Cellphone?

[pjt33]

I'm thinking of getting a second one in a month because I'm moving abroad. It's hard nowadays to get a phone contract without getting a phone, but I will want a phone on a local network so that I'm not paying roaming charges all the time. In addition, my current phone's built-in SMS dictionary doesn't include Spanish, and I'm moving to Spain. I'll keep the old one (which has a pay-as-you-go contract) for use when I'm visiting family.

Re:Who uses more than one Cellphone?

[Sporkinum]

I have a work phone, and they doesn't mind using it for personal use. It only gets used that way by my wife calling me to pick up milk or for me to ask what crap she wants from the store on the way home from work. If I had to pay for it, it would not be worth paying for for that usage.

Re:Who uses more than one Cellphone?

[jaria]

Multiple reasons:

- Some people's use of multiple subscriptions or even multiple phones to separate work and personal use.

- Because some people need devices with different features at different times (PDA phone vs. very small phone). Personally, I use a full featured phone that is also small...

- Its not just people, its also machines. My house has two GSM systems, one for energy and another one for alarms; I suspect I'll soon get more for electricity and water measurements. And then some in the summer house...

- The way that we can count the subscriptions or phones is imprecise. People get new ones regularly. I suspect some may appear to exist even if real life they have been abandoned.

And so on. There are reasons.

Jari

milestone?

[vimh42]

Great milestone. "For children growing up today the issue is not whether they will get a mobile phone, it's a question of when" I asked my daughter to write up a Christmas list. You can guess what made it on the list. Yes that's right. A cell phone. She's six. I don't like the trend.

Re:milestone?

[insertwackynamehere]

So? When I was 6 I wanted a lot of things that my parents would never get me because I was too young. It's not uncommon for children to want things they see everywhere but are too young to have. If it was cigarettes than you should explain to her they are bad, but a cell phone is something that in this day and age, many people will need at a certain point and isn't inheritly harmful or to be discouraged for life, it should just be explained that she is too young. Same as if she asked for a car or something.

Re:milestone?

[logixoul]

Ouch...

well

[genican1]

I for one welcome our up-and-coming wireless overlords!

they must be loosing money

[d3l33t]

(population/2) * ((.25 * minute usage) + (.10 per text)) = loss in profits for telecos. We need less telecom regulations! Poor Bastards /sarcasm

I agree completely

[benhocking]

Just like some people have a problem with drinking and driving, but I know how to handle my alcohol!

Re:I agree completely

[Donniedarkness]

Ok, I see your point here... but tell me, how is talking on a cell phone and driving any different than driving a stick-shift and talking to the person next to you?

Re:I agree completely

[palndrumm]

how is talking on a cell phone and driving any different than driving a stick-shift and talking to the person next to you While driving a stick-shift, you only need to take one of your hands off the wheel to change gears, and you don't (or at least you shouldn't) need to take your eyes off the road in order to do it. While talking a cell phone in the car, you've only got one hand on the wheel the whole time, and if you need to actually do anything with the phone (beyond maybe just hitting the 'answer' button) you have to take your eyes off the road and look at the screen of the phone.

Talking to the person next to you is less of an issue, but at least the person sitting next to you in the car can see what's going on around you, so they're going to understand if you stop talking in mid-sentence to avoid the taxi that's just pulled out in front of you.

Re:I agree completely

[_ivy_ivy_]

How is driving a stick shift distracting, unless your driving skill are lacking? If anything, a manual transmission makes you far more aware of what your car is doing at any given moment.

Re:I agree completely

[Director of Acronyms]

Cognitively, talking on a mobile phone is harder work - you've heard the old idea that 80% (or something) of communication is non verbal? This means that facial expression, body language, tone of voice and so on are all important to the full meaning of what someone says. Even if you are focussed on driving, you are getting a lot of cues from talking to the person next to you that you don't get from the person on the mobile, so your brain is having to work harder on the mobile phone conversation to ensure it is getting correct meaning.

Driving stick/manual is probably irrelevant - studies have shown the distraction is from the non-visual communication as noted above, rather than the holding of the phone itself - Register Article here, google will find you plenty more

Re:I agree completely

[Tsiangkun]

Lets add a person to the car, with
you on the phone.

When you are talking on the phone,
the person in the passenger seat
can make a loud gasp to let you
know that you are about to miss
your chance to avoid an accident.

The person on the phone does not
care about the environment you
are driving in and keeps on distracting
you from the road.

Take the extra passenger out of the car,
and you won't get that *gasp* to warn
you about the immediate danger you are in.

Take the phone out of your hand, and the
passenger is still aware of the environment
you are driving in, and reacts to the
environment with you.

This was a troll right ?

Re:I agree completely

[MichaelSmith]

Talking to the person next to you is less of an issue, but at least the person sitting next to you in the car can see what's going on around you, so they're going to understand if you stop talking in mid-sentence to avoid the taxi that's just pulled out in front of you.

I ride a bicycle to work and I have seen a lot of crazy shit in the last couple of years:

• Bicycle riders chatting away on the phone with one or zero hands on the controls
• Car drivers stylusing away on PDA's
• Some guy taking orders from his GPS. Stopping ten metres back from the traffic signals (presumably because of a GPS error) and slowing down before intersections to wait for the GPS to catch up and tell him if he had to turn.
• People who are out visiting who call up somebody at their destination and take instructions like "ok look for the letterbox year got it now turn left left left".

For me the difference between a distraction in the car, compared with one outside the car is about attention. If my wife is in the car and starts a conversation about what to buy somebody for christmas then that is just as distracting for me as if she called me up. OTH talking about the immediate environment keeps your attention in the car. A phone call will almost always direct your attention elsewhere.

Re:I agree completely

[Malekin]

Not only are non-verbal cues (the majority of communication) lost over a phone, the audio quality is much lower and the brain has to work quite a bit harder to comprehend.

Re:I agree completely

[Hyperspite]

It's actually a well documented problem, and it's psychological. Stick shift doesn't screw with your attention. Someone that is in the car doesn't screw with your attention as much as a disembodied voice in your ear (and they can watch out for potential problems as well). I've heard of studies that showed that people who are talking into a cell phone drive worse than the average drunk driver. Part of the problem is that when you are talking into a phone, you are psychologically in another place. YMMV of course as different people may use different mental mechanisms.

And I'm not one of them!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about it? Is there anyone else left here who also hasn't got a cell phone?

Half

[fm6]

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if half the human race did have cell phones. In the developing world, they're actually more practical than landlines, because they require less physical infrastructure. Plus, in some countries, cell phone rates are structured so that people with very little money can afford them, provided they use them only for texting.

Re:Half

[webmaster404]

Well that is totally odd compared to US companies who charge you comparatively more for texting then from voice calls to get the same information across... The 300 some character limit is annoying....

Re:Half

[49152]

Which is because in most of the western world text message prices are insanely inflated.

Re:Half

[mpe]

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if half the human race did have cell phones. In the developing world, they're actually more practical than landlines, because they require less physical infrastructure.

Especially if you can power the base stations using solar cells or a wind turbine (together with some batteries to handle when there isn't enough light and/or wind). Then you don't even need any power infrastructure.
Similarly you don't actually need a power grid to keep the handset batteries charged.

Re:Half

[mpe]

Well that is totally odd compared to US companies who charge you comparatively more for texting then from voice calls to get the same information across... The 300 some character limit is annoying....

They charge what the maket will put up with. The charges for making telephone calls havn't had much relationship to the actual cost for some time, if indeed they ever did.

Re:Half

[fm6]

Fees like this are always based on what they can get away with, not what their services cost. Banks charge you $20 for a bounced check that costs them $5 to process, and even more for a late credit card payment that costs them nothing. Cable companies, on top of their high rates, charge you $50 for not returning your set-top box, even if it's an ancient model that costs them to dispose of!

The difference between us and the developing world is the deepness of consumer pockets, not the cost of technology.

Re:Half

[fm6]

Especially if you can power the base stations using solar cells or a wind turbine (together with some batteries to handle when there isn't enough light and/or wind).

Even with batteries, I'm dubious that you could make solar or wind power reliable enough to keep a cell tower on the air. Technologies like these really need to be part of a bigger infrastructure to work. Windmills, in particular, need to be really big to generate a meaningful amount of power. I suspect most, if not all, off-grid towers rely on diesel generators.

Geez

[Beefslaya]

I wish that bitch driving in front of me didn't have one....

Err....Oh yeah, how am I posting?

They're not so bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new cellular ov...

WHAT?

Can you hear me now?

I SAID, CAN YOU

0.5 cell phones

[DynaSoar]

That's the number equal to "half the human species" (the number of human species being one).

The stated number, 3.3 billion, is equal to half the human population.

The number reflects the number of people who have access to a telephone. Half the world's population does not have access to any telephone at all. Since many people do not have cell phones, the number probably reflects the fact that those that have cell phones tend to lose them and buy another, or upgrade, or own more than one for whatever the reasons.

I wonder how many of them are connected to a service. I know there are plenty out there that people carry and even pretend to use, but aren't connected.

I refuse to own one, and use them only under duress. I only carry one in the car on trips (said duress coming from my wife) in case I have a break down. It stays turned off unless such an incident occurs. Damn tiny buttons too close together. I push three buttons at a time with one of my big fingers.

Here's the easy reason why

[CrazyJim1]

I think the number of cell phones is so great because people own several cell phones over their life. I know I've had like 3, and most people trade their cell in every 2 years unlike me.

Here!

[Fantastic Lad]

How about it? Is there anyone else left here who also hasn't got a cell phone?

Present and accounted for!

Land line. My cold, dead hands.

I don't wear a dog collar. I get great reception. Costs less. And my brain is not fuzzed out with the mind-control radiation.

Oh, they laugh. They all laugh! (Well, they don't do it to my face, cuz they know that a guy who speaks with my brand of conviction will only make them read a bunch of boring technical notes to prove his position while they only have colorful pamphlets offering mobile deals).

Okay. I'll crawl back into the woodwork now. --People can find me easily enough, though. Just follow the copper pair.

-FL

Re:Here!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Oh, they laugh. They all laugh!

They do laugh, because you actually believe that shit. Damn you're an idiot.

in Portugal

[Chutulu]

in Portugal there are more mobile phones than people. Really. I know lots of people who own two. And i know some that have three, one for each phone carrier. :D

next week on slashdot

[Fluorophore]

Number of people with brain cancer equals half the human population.

Re:next week on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

That's gonna be a hell of a class action when it gets going...

What a lot of people don't know, is that newer cell phones have been reduced to emit less than half the energy in many cases than the older mobile phone models. You have to ask yourself why, if holding a radio transmitter to the side of your head is so... safe...

better yet, microSD

[tepples]

Throw in the trend towards terabyte flash drives(my six month old, $20, 2GB keychain drive is ~20 gigabytes per cubic inch, so 1 terabyte isn't all that ridiculous, just sort of far in the future) Has anybody bothered to compute the data density in gigabytes per cubic inch of 1 GB microSD cards?

Re:better yet, microSD

[maxume]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=11mm*15mm*1mm+in+cubic+inches

It's in the very high 90's.

Re:better yet, microSD

[ArcticFlood]

Regular SD Cards are better. 16 GB SD Cards yield 162 gigabytes per cubic inch. 32 GB cards are on the way, too.

Re:better yet, microSD

[maxume]

It depends on how big microSD gets. Apparently, 8GB cards are on the way:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/16/samsung-develops-8gb-microsd-card/

which is somewhere past 700 GB(and 2 GB cards are actually available). It's all just making the point, which has surely been made, that you can already fit quite a lot of flash into a reasonable volume. Part of the reason I used a memory stick is that it accounts for some volume being taken up wiring stuff together so that it actually works.

Cell phones, or cell accounts?

[artifex2004]

The commentary says cell accounts.

For all we know, given how quickly people in certain countries swap for new phones, we may actually have had more cell phones around than the current population.

A secondary system. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Hm. How do you control the thoughts, emotions and actions of an entire race of people?

HAARP. (Allows you to bounce your signal all around the globe). Here's a selected bit from an old New York Times article about one of the guys researching this back in the fifties. . .

Of all the scientists who are working in this area, however, Dr. Delgado appears to be the only one using radio to stimulate animals' brains, with special attention to effects on social behavior. He also makes use of telemetry in studying physiological activity in brains and other organs.

"I do not know why more work of this sort isn't done," he remarked recently, "because it is so economical and easy." Essentially, Dr. Delgado's system for studying social behavior consists of constant time-lapse photography of animal colonies, the analysis of those films and recording of of all the animals, details in the behavior patterns.

This permits not just qualitative assessment of the animals' social interactions but also the quantification of each one's behavioral profile, Dr. Delgado said. This is particularly important when analyzing the modifications in social behavior of the group produced by radio stimulation of a particular response in one or more of the animals.

For example, stimulation of several specific regions of the brain can induce aggressiveness in a monkey. Having quantatative data on that animal's behavior, as well as on that of others in the colony can reveal more precisely the magnitude, of various, sometimes subtle, effects of electrical stimulation on individual and collective social behavior.

This guy was pretty messed up. --He thought that humans needed to be controlled for their own good. --As do many other players in the creepy world of mind control. And that was several decades ago.

A guy I knew in the military who was in a position to know told me that the cell phone system is more about monitoring everybody. However, he was also aware that the brain could be controlled through energy manipulation and confirmed extensive application of this. So. . , my thinking is that the energies the cell phone net bathes us in are also very good at making people behave in certain ways by directly stimulating the brain, which makes it a secondary system to the big ol' HAARP thingy. This has been confirmed by a couple of channeled sources. (Ouija board stuff.) (Please note, that the material here is copyrighted by the authors, but it's been recently removed from, well, everywhere including the internet archive, and the original site of the authors also vanished a couple of days back which is the only reason I'm posting the link here. My apologies to the authors. Please don't change or alter or re-post the contents in any way. If the original material re-appears, then I'll delete the linked file. Cheers!)

In any case. . , cell phones are messed up. Just look at the people you know who use them regularly. Don't they seem a bit. . , well, dumb to you? Unless you are one of them. Then you probably aren't able to see it. The brain's a funny thing that way.

-FL

Why people want cellphones

[qinjuehang]

Cellphones used to be used just to call people. That was back when they are not necessary, simply because we have public phones everywhere. But cellphones are much more useful than that nowadays. With 3G or even 3.5G connections, people are reading news headlines off a RSS feed using their cellphone, checking email using their cellphone, video calling their lady friends in the subway...these are things that public phones CANNOT do. Not forgetting the good old games. So face it. Cellphones are closing in on PDAs in terms of hardware. Many of them even have Wi-Fi, one of the major advantages of PDAs and PocketPCs over cellphones. The only reason their software is not as complex is because they use their own OSes. But with Nokia smartphones using modified Linux and Firefox, the gap between cellphones and PocketPCs are closing. Except that PocketPCs use Windows, maybe.

Generation Y

[EEPROMS]

If your young and renting (or living with your parents still) a mobile phone is the cheapest solution for your communications needs. Paying a monthly line fee plus internet comes into question when a modern 3.5G mobile service provider can offer both with a bundled cheaper monthly price. I know many fellow IT people who have a wireless network card (CDMA) plugged into their laptop computer and a mobile and no home line. This will only get worse as WiMAX (4G ?) starts hitting the airwaves and people can watch streaming media and surf the web without many of the issues of CDMA/GSM data services.

You can't say "Away From Phone" with a cell...

[wizard of aahz]

My niece who's 7 has been given by her grandmother an iPod, a Wii and every other gadget imaginable. She uses the landline infinitely more than I did as a teenager. I shudder at the thought of her with a cell phone. It's probably coming very fast. On the other hand. Life is very different having a cell phone. Calling to say you're going to be late, early, etc... The ability to be in the car and call and say "i was driving by and thought of you and thought I might stop by.. What are you up to?" doesn't happen without cell phones. Calling your spouse to say "We're out of milk, can you grab some" is much better than waiting until they get home. There's a real difference between need, want and nice to have.

Cell*phones* does not equal "mobile accounts"...

[Anonymous Freak]

I personally have one "mobile account," and I am "responsible" for three (mine, my wife's, and a company account that one of my employee's uses.)

But in my house, right now, there are nine cell/mobile phones. I've got my iPhone, my wife has her Motorola SLVR, I have my previous cell phone, a Nokia N-Gage, which I still use to play games on (ironic, since when I got it, I got it specifically because it was a free S60 smartphone, with no intention of playing games on it at all,) as well as my wife's previous phone, a Motorola V330. Then there is the "company cellphone" a Samsung that my employee doesn't use (he just put the SIM in an old Sony-Ericsson he had.) Then there are my truly obsolete phones, two Sanyos from Sprint and two Motorolas from Qwest.

And if you count phones I no longer even have physical possession of, you'd have to add six more. (A mid-90s Motorola 'flip' phone that was so common back then, a 'flip-less' version of the same thing, a newer StarTAC phone, two Samsungs, and a Nokia.)

So the four people in my household (this includes the two kids that have never owned a single phone, other than my old ones with their batteries removed to use as toys,) have owned a grand total of 15 mobile phones. But at present, we only have three mobile accounts.

Nah ...

[Bearpaw]

So, are cell phones the advanced scouts for the upcoming and inevitable Robot Wars?

Nah, they're part of the alien invasion target acquisition system.

1) Big mofo saucer appears over every city.
2) Everyone calls everyone else to tell them about the big mofo saucer.
3) Several minutes of intense flashes from a billion precisely-targeted death rays.
4) Big mofo saucers land, aliens pile out and do obnoxious end-zone dances.

So, Coke or Pepsi?

[Fantastic Lad]

They do laugh, because you actually believe that shit. Damn you're an idiot.

That shit, my friend. . ?

Thing is, one of us is right and one of us isn't. And one of us is an Anonymous Coward. Tell you anything?

I've got some neat info on EM assembled by a Doctor Robert O. Becker which I found helpful in determining what to think about electro magnetics and its relationship with the human nervous system. If you're interested, I'd be happy to share. Of course, it's easier to do no research at all and simply tell yourself that anybody who thinks outside the popular trends is a fool. Unfortunately, following the popular trends also makes people limited, mis-informed and if you'll pardon me, but also kind of boring and predictable. ('Predictable' being perhaps the most important feature). So which IS your favorite? Coke or Pepsi? And how about that Gameboy? Shucks!

-FL

Misleading title (yet again)

[jonnykelly]

So why would Zonk go and change the perfectly apt Firehose title supplied by the submitter to something that is entirely incorrect? Oh, it's /. that's why. :S

three

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is three, and I thought everyone got that in first grade science class, or especially after your first day on the playground when the teachers weren't looking. Nerds, jocks and suits, the three species of humans. HG2TG had a whole episode on it, the thinkers, the doers and the middlemen.

what a surprise

[Alex]

A slashdot post about mobile phones, cue loads of North Americans whining about GSM/CDMA, Verizon, cellphone plans, etc.

Awesome!

the human species vs. danish population

[Anonymous Coward]

In Denmark there are more cellphones than people...

Specie vs Specimen

[Anonymous Coward]

Specie : http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/specie
Specimen : http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/specimen

Not Cheaper

[brunes69]

And for those Luddites proudly proclaiming their cellphone-free status: Your position is nonsense...

I have a cell phone, so not arguing most of your points, but this is a broad sweeping statement that is totally false for many areas. I can get local phone service for $22 / month, and I can use that to make an unlimited number of local calls 24/7. Cheapest standard cell phone plan I can get is more like $27 when you add in the SAF, and that only allows me 150 daytime minutes a month, and the "unlimited evenings" start at 8pm.

And on top of all this, personally I have a VOIP "landline", so I get unlimited long distance calling 24/7 for less than $20 / month.

They force us to have two cellphones

[master_p]

Cellular telephony companies force us to have two cellphones (or more) due to their packages: in order to speak cheaply, you have to buy a specific package not available by your phone company but by another company; and in order to get away with the hassle of switching cards, it's easier to buy a 2nd device, which usually comes as an added bonus with the cheap package.

Some people even have 3 phones: two personal (one generic, one with the cheap program), and one given by the company they work in.

YIPEEEEE!!!

[Miss Spider]

So, I am guessing cell phones don't cause brain tumors anymore then??? KEWL! I am getting FIVE MORE!!!

You had me worried for a minute there.

[ruinous]

I read that as "In the developing world, they're actually more practical than landmines".

I mean to say, I hadn't thought the exploding battery problem was THAT serious.