20 Years of GSM and SMS

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Tuesday May 8, 2012 @12:46AM from the grudgingly-admit-sms-is-useful dept.

udas writes "Two thirds of the world's population, 4 billion people, use cell phones today, and all of them have access to SMS. Groupe Spécial Mobile (GSM), set up in 1982, created the GSM standard, leading to a unified, open, standard-based mobile network. SMS, up to 160 7-bit character messages sent over control channels (when they aren't busy), was part of the original GSM specification itself. The first GSM handsts were approved for sale in May 1992. But it was not until 1996, when pay-as-you-go SIM cards showed up, and the kids got their hands on it, that SMS gained popularity."

157 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

ugly abomination by mapkinase · 2012-05-08 00:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

ugly, overpriced abomination that should die, die, die.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
1. Re:ugly abomination by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 00:51 · Score: 0
  
  Do you use it?
2. Re:ugly abomination by Thanshin · 2012-05-08 01:04 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  ugly, overpriced abomination that should die, die, die.
  Why kill it? It's one more tax on idiocy. Idiots are paying our providers.
  I don't want it to stop. I want more idiot taxes! Install blackjack on all mobiles.
3. Re:ugly abomination by Chrisq · 2012-05-08 01:06 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  ugly, overpriced abomination that should die, die, die.
  But enough about cowboy Neil
4. Re:ugly abomination by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-08 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, our providers have generally realized that taxing idiots to pay for lobbyists and generate profits is substantially more lucrative than taxing idiots to pay for infrastructure upgrades...
5. Re:ugly abomination by Valacity · 2012-05-08 01:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  ugly, overpriced abomination that should die, die, die.
  Why kill it? It's one more tax on idiocy. Idiots are paying our providers.
  Oh yes, because everyone else is an idiot. It's good we have Thansin, who is not an idiot, because what would we do otherwise.
  
  Look, not everything is priced at the lowest point compared to other services like the internet. Yes, per megabyte price for SMS is huge. But who the fuck tries to transfer data with it anyway? On top of that most people have unlimited SMS with their plans now. Even without that SMS price isn't that high and it was very convenient.
  
  By the way, SMS was also developed by Nokia engineers, accidentally actually. Just shows how much groundwork Nokia has done for mobiles and that they actually deserve every patent they have (most of which they've given for free use anyway).
6. Re:ugly abomination by peragrin · 2012-05-08 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  I send 10-20 texts a month. At$.25 a text it costs me no more than $5 extra.
  Unlimited texts start at $20 a month for AT&T.
  no most people don't pay for it.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
7. Re:ugly abomination by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  STARTS AT?? WOW.. Comes as standard in the UK.. Don't think you can get non-unlimited TXT anymore. and my tariff starts at £10 ($16.13). That's with Data and Free calls too. (Not much data, and not many free minutes, but more than I use in a month). I do send almost 1500'ish txt a month though. Much easier when you don't have to worry about what type of phone the person on the other end has or there technical skill with that phone. Everyone has SMS.
8. Re:ugly abomination by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  yes die die die. bring on IP pure systems so the monopolies can do the way of the dinosaurs.
9. Re:ugly abomination by jeffmeden · 2012-05-08 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  ugly, overpriced abomination that should die, die, die.
  Why kill it? It's one more tax on idiocy. Idiots are paying our providers.
  Oh yes, because everyone else is an idiot. It's good we have Thansin, who is not an idiot, because what would we do otherwise. Look, not everything is priced at the lowest point compared to other services like the internet. Yes, per megabyte price for SMS is huge. But who the fuck tries to transfer data with it anyway? On top of that most people have unlimited SMS with their plans now. Even without that SMS price isn't that high and it was very convenient. By the way, SMS was also developed by Nokia engineers, accidentally actually. Just shows how much groundwork Nokia has done for mobiles and that they actually deserve every patent they have (most of which they've given for free use anyway).
  The real problem is that the providers aren't really happy just charging high fees to the people that "don't know better" as the GP thinks (with his non-idiot intellect,) instead they use it (like someone else mentioned) to get enough laws and regulations in their favor that they make everyone an idiot, stringing together enough fees and tiers and contracts that there is basically no escape except to "settle" on some compromise between quality, ease of use, and cost. But God bless the free market for providing us with the opportunity to choose and lose!
10. Re:ugly abomination by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  are you sure it wasn't a comment about cmdrtaco
11. Re:ugly abomination by mcgrew · 2012-05-08 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'm on Boost Mobile. How is unlimited talk, text, long distance, 411, roaming, internet, and email for $45 overpriced? Back in the landline days twenty years ago when long distance calls were expensive most of my pohone bills were higher than my cell bill is now (and I no longer have a landline).
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
12. Re:ugly abomination by rickb928 · 2012-05-08 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  I use Smozzy from time to time for little things, and revel in the absurdity if it.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
13. Re:ugly abomination by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Fine. I guess you've never had $50 in also carte text charges in a single month and a carrier who refused to sell you a text plan.
  I, on the other hand, have.
14. Re:ugly abomination by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  +1. I have Virgin Mobile, and for $40 I get unlimited email/web/data/SMS and 1200 minutes --the minutes I'm sure I never use, but the unlimited texts comes in handy (when you're a 24x7 on call SysAdmin).
  I think people are bitching about SMS just to..bitch.
15. Re:ugly abomination by Ihmhi · 2012-05-08 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  STARTS AT?? WOW.. Comes as standard in the UK.
  We have a lot of stuff over here in the states that doesn't come standard. SMS, Health care, a good social safety net... it's just one more thing to add to the list.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
16. Re:ugly abomination by Rei · 2012-05-08 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Over here in Iceland, with NOVA, I can't get unlimited text, and even getting a fixed number of "free" texts a month is absurdly expensive. The per-text cost is something like $0.08.
  Back in the US, I never texted. It was a total rip off, I contended, and I refused to do it. Over here, I've totally changed. I read and write Icelandic much better than I speak it, and over a phone call, it's almost impossible for me to carry on a proper conversation in Icelandic. Everyone has cell phones. So spending a couple dozen cents here and there is worth it to me. I use Viber wherever possible to avoid the charges.
  Again, SMS is still a rip off. But sometimes, you just pay for the rip-off if it makes your life easier.
  
  --
  We're practicing our labials.
17. Re:ugly abomination by Cimexus · 2012-05-08 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's not really overpriced on most modern plans (which either have unlimited texting for a flat fee, or simply include a number of free texts per month that is more than most people need).
  I'm on a low end cap plan on Vodafone (Australia) that gives me $180 of 'value' for $20 a month. That 'value' is just a bucket which I can use on calls, data, SMS or whatever. If I used the whole lot on SMS (nominally priced at 28 cents each, but that's not what you actually pay), it'd be:
  180.00 / 0.28 = 642 SMS per month.
  Given that I pay $20, that's equivalent to 3 cents per SMS. Ok so this is still overpriced if you consider it just as 'data' and figure it out as $/MB ... but you are paying for the ability conveniently to communicate a short, non-time-critical message, not for 160 bytes (or whatever) of 'data'. That's worth 3 cents to me.
  And that's on my super-low-end plan. The cost on the higher plans would be much, much lower (effectively under 1 cent per SMS).
  Agree though that it was kinda overpriced ten or more years ago (I remember paying 22 cents per SMS in the late 90s).
18. Re:ugly abomination by badkarmadayaccount · 2012-05-10 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Is there a non-UUCP circuit-switched e-mail protocol you would like to share with us about?
  
  --
  I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Still alive by GioMac · 2012-05-08 00:49 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Worst mobile standard ever.

--
"It feels like I'm at the Zoo when reading this thread - I'm frightened, but it's interesting" (c)
1. Re:Still alive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 00:59 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  GSM is far better than that crappy American CDMA trash!
2. Re:Still alive by Thanshin · 2012-05-08 01:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Worst mobile standard ever.
  Hmm. The "two yogurts and a string" standard is pretty weak too.
3. Re:Still alive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Which must be why when GSM went 3G and beyond, they pretty much dumped everything from GSM (Like that craptacular TDMA scheme) and copied the many things that CDMA got right, huh?
  About the only thing that GSM got right was that SIMs are manditory, rather than optional like in CDMA.
4. Re:Still alive by mlts · 2012-05-08 03:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I'd say GSM has a number of features that are far useful for a clued customer than CDMA. Of course, in theory the differences will go away when companies move to LTE and one stream for communications (as opposed to separated voice/data.) A couple points:
  Yes, I can keep my Internet connection going while using my BT headpiece and talking with a friend. Very simple, but CDMA, you talk, or use the packet radio; not both.
  If the device is unlocked, I can used whatever the heck I feel like on a GSM network. Switching between my iPhone and Android phone is just a SIM card swap away. With CDMA companies, I have to call them and plead for them to switch the number to that phone, and IIRC, unless you bought the device from that provider, they will laugh in your face.
  The US CDMA standard is a crippled implementation. Everywhere else in the world, the CDMA standard uses R/UIM cards. This allows people to use whatever cell phone they want, just like with GSM (provided the phone is unlocked.) This also prevents phones from other countries being used in the US.
  I like GSM for the ability to use an unlocked phone I bought anywhere in the world in the US. The phone may crawl along at EDGE speed, but at least it can be used, unlike CDMA phones which have to be tossed, if one wants to change providers.
5. Re:Still alive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  I'd say GSM has a number of features that are far useful for a clued customer than CDMA. Of course, in theory the differences will go away when companies move to LTE and one stream for communications (as opposed to separated voice/data.) A couple points:
  Yes, I can keep my Internet connection going while using my BT headpiece and talking with a friend. Very simple, but CDMA, you talk, or use the packet radio; not both.
  If the device is unlocked, I can used whatever the heck I feel like on a GSM network. Switching between my iPhone and Android phone is just a SIM card swap away. With CDMA companies, I have to call them and plead for them to switch the number to that phone, and IIRC, unless you bought the device from that provider, they will laugh in your face.
  The US CDMA standard is a crippled implementation. Everywhere else in the world, the CDMA standard uses R/UIM cards. This allows people to use whatever cell phone they want, just like with GSM (provided the phone is unlocked.) This also prevents phones from other countries being used in the US.
  I like GSM for the ability to use an unlocked phone I bought anywhere in the world in the US. The phone may crawl along at EDGE speed, but at least it can be used, unlike CDMA phones which have to be tossed, if one wants to change providers.
  You're aware that three of the four advantages you list are "The SIM is manditory" which your parent poster said was GSM's main advantage, right?
  
  And the fourth is the byproduct of an ugly hack which now afflicts CDMA/LTE phones as well: a second radio stack.
6. Re:Still alive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  No, the only reason GSM was so successful was quite simple. Once in our lifetime, we saw a case where european engineers went for the simple, cheap and easy to implement solution, while US engineers went for the expensive and overengineered way. Normally it's the other way round.
7. Re:Still alive by MrL0G1C · 2012-05-08 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  ... Did you try eating the yogurt 1st?
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
8. Re:Still alive by GioMac · 2012-05-08 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Actually not. It had sense when GSM phones were cheaper. Technologically it's much more complicated than CDMA and very crappy.
  
  --
  "It feels like I'm at the Zoo when reading this thread - I'm frightened, but it's interesting" (c)
9. Re:Still alive by GioMac · 2012-05-08 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  There is no 3G GSM. 3G is actually CDMA. Technologically there is nothing from classic GSM in there.
  
  --
  "It feels like I'm at the Zoo when reading this thread - I'm frightened, but it's interesting" (c)
10. Re:Still alive by GioMac · 2012-05-08 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  What about quality, spectral efficiency, bandwidth?
  I don't care about SIM card, if I'm switching from mobile operator to mobile operator - I still need to buy a card.
  
  --
  "It feels like I'm at the Zoo when reading this thread - I'm frightened, but it's interesting" (c)
11. Re:Still alive by Midnight+Thunder · 2012-05-08 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  There is no 3G GSM. 3G is actually CDMA. Technologically there is nothing from classic GSM in there.
  You are confusing CDMA as signal encoding and the CDMA data specification' (aka Qualcomm CDMA). GSM always been an umbrella standard covering what features are needed for communication. Originally GSM went with TDMA as the encoding, but in recent years have switched to CDMA. 3G GSM refers to the third generation of the GSM standard, which also includes the CDMA signal encoding. It does not use the Qualcomm CDMA data specification.
  GSM was as a standard was formed by multiple entities to avoid the incompatiblities encountered during the analogue days. The GSM standard includes many technologies and evolves over time. As long as the licensees follow the standard, then everyone communicates.
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
12. Re:Still alive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  Half your problems should be solved by moving to Europe. But then you'll probably be unemployed..
13. Re:Still alive by GioMac · 2012-05-09 21:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about needs, it's about possibilities and how it works. GSM network requires hard planning in coverage, it's radio part is crappy, has delays.
  CDMA/TDMA is not encoding, it's way data is delivered to required phone.
  GSM has not switched to CDMA method, GSM has timeslots. UMTS is not GSM. UMTS is based on CDMA entirely and has derived nothing from GSM.
  GSM has not evolved at all, all it has done is PSK8 modulation.
  
  --
  "It feels like I'm at the Zoo when reading this thread - I'm frightened, but it's interesting" (c)
20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 00:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

And they still charge over $1000/MB for SMS.
1. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  2012
  Still not using Whatsapp
  I seriously hope you guys don't do that.
2. Re:20 years later... by King-Raz · 2012-05-08 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on your plan. Like many others, I get unlimited SMS as part of my monthly subscription.
  
  --
  ~c
3. Re:20 years later... by AbRASiON · 2012-05-08 01:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There is about 15 different companies offering their own messaging systems "for free" - some even offering VOIP calls.
  These insidious packages take a copy of all your friends as well and match you up against them, awful things - also never is everyone you know on it, ever.
  I hate to yet again give Apple credit but building the imessage system into the iphone is brilliant and I sincerely hope Google copy the concept with far far better Google talk integration into the Android OS (frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't been patched in NOW)
  Nice of the 3'rd parties to offer this but I'm just not interested unless it's seamless (which, to my knowledge imessage is? if it can imessage, it will - if not, defaults to SMS, seamlessly, right?)
4. Re:20 years later... by lobiusmoop · 2012-05-08 01:28 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  "'SMS is the closest thing to pure profit ever invented" - Sir Chris Gent, founder of Vodafone.
  (from here)
  
  --
  "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
5. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:30 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah really. Who still pays for SMS?
6. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  I hate to yet again give Apple credit but building the imessage system into the iphone is brilliant and I sincerely hope Google copy the concept with far far better Google talk integration into the Android OS (frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't been patched in NOW)
  Em, you know Google Talk has been in Android since the beginning, right? It's maybe missing from Android phones you have seen due to carrier 'customisations', but it is in the default set of apps. And it does video and voice messaging. SMS is dead.
  I personally don't know anyone that uses any apple messaging things, so I don't know how it compares. You're right about Whatsapp though, evil app for stupid people who actually think it sends SMSes for free.
7. Re:20 years later... by Albanach · 2012-05-08 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I hate to yet again give Apple credit but building the imessage system into the iphone is brilliant and I sincerely hope Google copy the concept with far far better Google talk integration into the Android OS (frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't been patched in NOW)
  The reason SMS remains popular is because it just works. I can text someone in Kansas or Kenya and the message gets there, whatever brand of phone the end user is holding.
  Why credit Apple for another move at vendor lock-in. Apple have enough sway with their iPhone that they could have made their messaging system an open and interoperable standard.
8. Re:20 years later... by imamac · 2012-05-08 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Correct about iMessage. However, the goal was to allow iPhone users to decrease their text message plan and AT&T once again screwed it's customers and made it unlimited only.
9. Re:20 years later... by Albanach · 2012-05-08 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  The majority of people with a prepaid plan are paying 20 cents per message in the US - to send and receive.
  Everyone else is paying too, the cost is just bundled into a big monthly so you can't identify what any one part of it costs. That makes it much harder to shop around for other deals that might leave you better off, since you're likely to seek the safety of unlimited everything rather than buying what you need.
10. Re:20 years later... by stud9920 · 2012-05-08 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  You should not use SMS to transfer data. It was never the purpose of SMS. The product sold with SMS is ubiquity. It's the guaranteed lowest common denominator . I can bet you in 5 years my mom will not have a data service on her mobile. But she'll have SMS. That's what I pay for, otherwise I would have just mailed her. This is also the reason why nobody switched in great numbers to Skype for voice calls even when ITZ FRE3 ONE1!!!. It's hardly ubiquitous. Additionally in many territories, data based services
11. Re:20 years later... by AbRASiON · 2012-05-08 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Apple deserve credit because their system works /seamlessly/ instantly with any other iphone (I wouldn't be surprised if it works on tablets but I don't know for sure)
  The key word here is seamlessly, utterly seamlessly. Therefore you will get 'free' SMS the second you use the App as long as the recipient is on an iphone. It's built in to the OS, nothing more to do.
  Hence, Google should be copying this, Google chat like integration - they've already done some work as I've now noticed in one of the newer Android builds that as I scroll through my contacts, some have the green dot representing being online on google chat (talk) - it just needs to default to messaging them off the bat.
  Google could then release Google chat for ios, allowing people to receive messages there, although I'm skeptical Apple would allow it.
12. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  I hate to yet again give Apple credit but building the imessage system into the iphone is brilliant and I sincerely hope Google copy the concept with far far better Google talk integration into the Android OS (frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't been patched in NOW)
  The reason SMS remains popular is because it just works. I can text someone in Kansas or Kenya and the message gets there, whatever brand of phone the end user is holding.
  Why credit Apple for another move at vendor lock-in. Apple have enough sway with their iPhone that they could have made their messaging system an open and interoperable standard.
  That's the nice thing about iMessage: it'll fall back to SMS if the recipient doesn't have an Apple device. If you trade your iPhone in for an Android phone, my iMessages to you become regular SMS messages with no intervention on my part.
  It still just works.
13. Re:20 years later... by oshkrozz · 2012-05-08 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yes unlike this chart, it is very hard to figure out the cost of your plan .. I know charts can be very confusing http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=prepayItem&action=viewPrepayOverview Or this one from ATT http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/cell-phone-plans/pyg-cell-phone-plans.jsp?wtSlotClick=1-007FTV-0-2&_requestid=186952 Or this one from Team Mobile http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/pay-as-you-go-plans You do not have to pay .20 per txt and it is very easy to figure out the plan that works best for you (well I guess since many in the USA by the time they get to HS can not balance a checkbook so basic addition and subtraction is elusive it really is not so easy) ... I can not find an actual study that has the number of people that take the very basic most expensive prepay option as you claim (ie 20c per txt or 25c/min) since an average phone call takes more then 3 min based at least on this article not just because I felt it was true (ie $1 on the perpay) http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_length_of_a_phone_call With prepay you have to use up the funds you put on your phone it almost doesn't make sense to do the 100% pay as you go option unless you know that on any given day you will never make a call more then 3 min long and the phone is really just for emergencies (not 911 emergencies) and even then if you get the 100/year plan (that is less then 10/month for the not so math inclined) and the $2/day option the most you will pay on any given day you use the phone is $2 the least is 0 and each txt is .02 so you are better off sending a txt message then making a call if you can. Yes you do need some basic math and to pay attention to what you do.
14. Re:20 years later... by kbielefe · 2012-05-08 02:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Repeat after me: prices are set by supply and demand, not by cost.
  The minimum costs of providing labor are extremely low, yet workers keep insisting on making a profit instead of working at indentured servitude rates.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank.
15. Re:20 years later... by bmo · 2012-05-08 02:20 · Score: 2
  
  Apple deserve credit because their system works /seamlessly/ instantly with any other iphone
  The problem is that you totally ignored what he said: it doesn't work with any other phones out there at all.
  SMS works on my dumbphone and I'm not about to buy an iPhone when I don't need it.
  --
  BMO
16. Re:20 years later... by AbRASiON · 2012-05-08 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Google talk does not work seamlessly as default when it detects someone online.,
  The SMS messaging app and the chat / talk app are 2 different entities and not working 'smartly'
17. Re:20 years later... by AbRASiON · 2012-05-08 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  I know it's limited to Apple devices so that's what? 30% of all SMS's people do are now free? Not bad for a piece of software added to your phone.
  You can't expect them to do this for everyone, it's not a simple to impliment. I'd be happy with 2 standards, 1 iphone, 1 android - from there consumers will whine enough that we'll eventually get interpolation like we did when SMS didn't go from carrier to carrier.
  At least it's a partial standard.
18. Re:20 years later... by bmo · 2012-05-08 02:34 · Score: 2
  
  See, this is the thing...
  A partial standard, using your definition of one, isn't an actual standard at all.
  --
  BMO
19. Re:20 years later... by jeffmeden · 2012-05-08 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  "'SMS is the closest thing to pure profit ever invented" - Sir Chris Gent, founder of Vodafone. (from here)
  And to think, the only thing you have to do to avoid the SMS charge is use the phone as a PHONE and call the person you wanted to communicate with. And yet somehow the texting option is more popular despite the constantly increasing cost...
20. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  I've never used SMS. What happens when you text someone whose phone doesn't support texting? Do you get a bounce message back like with email?
21. Re:20 years later... by clickclickdrone · 2012-05-08 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  That article is over four years old and even then is citing an old quote. The world has moved on quite a bit since then and as others have said, pretty much everyone in Europe at least gets unlimited texts or at least an awful lot in their bundle. I get 300mins, 1,000 texts and unlimited data plus a free Android phone (list price Â£450 when I signed up) for Â£18 a month on a 2 year contract.
  
  --
  I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
22. Re:20 years later... by ChumpusRex2003 · 2012-05-08 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's true that SMS "just works" now. But that is only a recent development.
  5 or 6 years ago - SMS across a national boundary was a lottery. It might work, it might not, and you'd have no way of knowing when, or even if, your message was delivered. This was particularly the case with the US, where SMS was particularly unreliable.
  Even SMS between individual networks within a country wasn't always as reliable as you might have expected.
23. Re:20 years later... by tom229 · 2012-05-08 02:51 · Score: 2
  
  I love apple fanbois. How is a shitty and extremely late implementation of BBM "brilliant"?
  
  --
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
24. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 02:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There's something to be said for asynchronous communication. Case in point - you're reading this at your leisure, at some point in time after I posted it, rather than reading reading it live as I type.
25. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  That's the theory. When I was in China (using a Chinese number) one of my friends in Australia could reliably text me. Other texts from Australia were haphazard. Texts from the UK never arrived. However, I could text other countries reliably. When I was in Bolivia (using a Bolivian number) nobody outside of Bolivia managed to text me and I couldn't text them. A friend in Bolivia using a British number received every text from the UK about fifty times. In both cases domestic texting was flawless.
  International texting should just work but, in my experience, it usually doesn't in poorer countries.
26. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  (list price Â£450 when I signed up) for Â£18 a month on a 2 year contract.
  Um, I think it's safe to assume that the list price is completely made up or inflated to make it seem like you're getting a great deal.
27. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 03:06 · Score: 0
  
  Why would you pay to receive a message? That is just absurd,
28. Re:20 years later... by SenseiLeNoir · 2012-05-08 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  SMS has been working in pretty much everywhere BUT the USA pretty well. I remember back in 1999 sending messages to people abroad, and getting messages sent back.
  Now here in the UK we have even had SMS on our landline (send and receive) for over 5 years..... most DECT cordless phones support the scheme well.
  
  --
  Have a nice day!
29. Re:20 years later... by clickclickdrone · 2012-05-08 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  It was an HTC Desire - Even now 2 years on you can pay Â£350 to Â£420 for one in the UK if you buy it as PAYG even though it's an older phone
  
  --
  I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
30. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that you totally ignored what he said: it doesn't work with any other phones out there at all.
  Because that's wrong. It works fine with any other phone out there.
  Suppose Alice has an iPhone, Bob has an iPhone, and Carol has a dumbphone.
  Alice taps Bob in the contacts list, types a message, it goes out via iMessage, and Bob gets it. Bob replies, it goes out via iMessage, and Alice gets it. Alice taps Carol in the same contacts list, types a message, it goes out via SMS and Carol gets it. Carol replies, it goes out via SMS, and Alice gets it.
  Alice doesn't have to do anything, and probably doesn't even know who has an iPhone and who doesn't.
  If Bob swaps his number to an Android phone next month, when Alice taps Bob in the contacts list and types a message, it goes out via SMS and Bob gets it. Bob replies, it goes out via SMS, and Alice gets it. Again, Alice probably doesn't notice a difference.
  You've probably gotten messages from people using iPhones on your dumbphone and never even realized it.
31. Re:20 years later... by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2012-05-08 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Apple deserve credit because their system works /seamlessly/ instantly with any other iphone (I wouldn't be surprised if it works on tablets but I don't know for sure)
  It does work, the tablet (or ipod touch) user needs to be on Messages (Messages is the app, iMessage the protocol) with their AppleID. iPhones can be 'on iMessage' with either their number (which is automatic) and/or their AppleID.
  Apple does deserve credit for this. It's transparent. It doesn't prevent users from messaging other platforms - the same app will SMS you just as easily, though with carrier SMS charges. This is done with no setup - the device just detects if your target is available for iMessage or falls back to SMS. But you gain an advantage when your target has an iOS5 device, not sure how that's very evil.
  The ones that should be scared are the folks at RIM. The one 'killer app' that many people still buy BlackBerries for is non-SMS-charging-BBM. Its hard to set up, and you need to type in a cryptic Hex number to find someone. If there are cheaper iPhones that do free messaging, or if Android gets an easy to use messenger like iMessage, BlackBerry is even further toast.
32. Re:20 years later... by seinman · 2012-05-08 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Alice will notice the difference. The text balloons for SMS messages are green, and they're blue for iMessages. It also says "Text message" or "iMessage" in the text box before you start typing your message to indicate how the message will be sent.
33. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  Alice will notice the difference. The text balloons for SMS messages are green, and they're blue for iMessages. It also says "Text message" or "iMessage" in the text box before you start typing your message to indicate how the message will be sent.
  I think you overestimate how much Alice would care. The indicators are there if you look for them, but pretty easy to miss if you don't. I'd bet 80% of iPhone users think "iMessage" is just Apple's cutesey name for SMS.
34. Re:20 years later... by fatphil · 2012-05-08 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  The GSM standards body has never charged anyone for an SMS.
  
  You're conflating use of a standard with service providers who sell use of that standard.
  
  To be honest, I can't believe the US providers who even charge for receipt of SMSs still get away with such absurd pricing. No carrier in any european country I've heard of has ever even thought of such a stupid and dangerous charging scheme. Nor could they now, as nobody would be stupid enough to chose them as a provider.
  
  In most countries in europe, it seems that you get about 200 free per month even on the cheapest network packages. PAYG is a different market clearly, but even then the last PAYG I used was either 2p or 3p per SMS, about 5 years ago.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
35. Re:20 years later... by Zeroko · 2012-05-08 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  I have SMS disabled (due to the extra cost, since most people I contact use Facebook or E-mail anyway). Incoming texts appear to be dropped silently without notifying the sender.
36. Re:20 years later... by blue_teeth · 2012-05-08 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  At least where Monopolies or Oligopolies operate. Come to India. It's mobile user wet dream. We are largely GSM. Voice calls - 1 paisa for 2 seconds. There are 100 paisas in 1 rupee. 50 Rupees = 1 USD. SMS: We basically don't care how much it costs. I think it's nearly free. Some 500 SMS free per month and then what? 20 paisa per SMS? In India, receiving party NEVER pays for SMS. International SMS (all over the world) costs like Rs 5 per SMS message. For comparative analogy, one USD will get you 10 cups of good tea (1 billion times better than a 5 Star hotel) on a roadside tea cart, and 1.5 USD will get you one litre (1000ml) of petrol. Cheers BT
37. Re:20 years later... by quacking+duck · 2012-05-08 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  And there's still shortcomings between carriers even in the same country.
  When SMSing someone on the same carrier, long (>160 characters) texts will appear to the recipient as a single text message if the phone supports it. I know, it's technically sent as multiple messages, but the receiving system knows how to re-assemble it into one.
  When SMSing to someone on a different carrier, the message is not only broken up, it sometimes appears out of order. From some carriers, there'll be a helpful (1 of 3) notice, then from another carrier I have to read all of them and mentally re-assemble them myself to read in the right order. Usually, the tail message arrives first because it's got less text than the preceding one(s).
38. Re:20 years later... by compro01 · 2012-05-08 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  I believe the message would just get dropped in that case, but unless you're using a phone from the 90s, it will support SMS.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
39. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  So then, as an iPhone user, why should I care if the we-hate-everyting-Apple-and-think-their-customers-are-idiots crowd gets to play with the same toys as I do? You people have made it abundantly clear what you think about me based on my choice of cell phone. So it's not like you would be interested talking to me over iMessage aanyway.
40. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  But that's only for mobile phones, right? I don't own a mobile phone which is why I asked.
41. Re:20 years later... by Rising+Ape · 2012-05-08 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  And the fact that trying to type anything on either a traditional mobile phone keypad or a touchscreen is an exercise in frustration and pain. If someone texts me I either wait until I'm at a PC so I can send an email or, if it can't wait, just phone them.
  Most bafflingly popular feature ever.
42. Re:20 years later... by Albanach · 2012-05-08 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's the nice thing about iMessage: it'll fall back to SMS if the recipient doesn't have an Apple device. If you trade your iPhone in for an Android phone, my iMessages to you become regular SMS messages with no intervention on my part.
  It still just works.
  Except you could be paying 20 cents per message if your iPhone were running on a prepaid tariff. And your friend might now be paying 20 cents per message to receive them. Yet that charge would be needless if Apple had simply made it a free and open standard.
43. Re:20 years later... by Albanach · 2012-05-08 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  In the United States it's the norm to pay to receive both calls and text messages on your cell phone.
  It primarily stems from cell phones adopting standard local numbers, and therefore calls to cell phones have never been charged at a premium like in Europe. So the cell phone owner has to pay rather than the caller pays model you might be more familar with.
  Of course this makes things like spam SMS much much more annoying.
44. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Standard doesn't work under poor implementation: Film at 11.
  
  While it may not work in Bolivia and Elbonia, it does work quire reliably in most first world countries. So its not really a problem with SMS, its a problem with the provider.
45. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  That's the nice thing about iMessage: it'll fall back to SMS if the recipient doesn't have an Apple device. If you trade your iPhone in for an Android phone, my iMessages to you become regular SMS messages with no intervention on my part.
  It still just works.
  Except you could be paying 20 cents per message if your iPhone were running on a prepaid tariff. And your friend might now be paying 20 cents per message to receive them. Yet that charge would be needless if Apple had simply made it a free and open standard.
  So basically, Apple developed a service where:
  1. If both users have Apple devices, they will save on SMS charges without any effort
  2. If one or both users uses a competitor's device, things work the same way they always have
  And you think this is a bad thing.
  You chose to buy a Samsung Galaxy Whateverthehell, your bestest buddy chose to buy an HTC Whoozit, and it's Apple's fault that you can't message each other for free? Get over yourself.
  Sure, it would be nice if Apple opened the iMessage protocol to its competitor's devices. It would be nice if Apple bought your kid a pony, too. Apple doesn't owe anyone open protocols any more than it owes your kid free ponies.
46. Re:20 years later... by ambrosen · 2012-05-08 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  It's a pretty tightly controlled market if so. There doesn't seem to be any way to get most smartphones on the independent market for less than the total cost of the contract in Europe.
47. Re:20 years later... by compro01 · 2012-05-08 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  In general, a message sent to a landline will just be dropped silently.
  Some cell phone carriers offer an sms-to-voice service, which will ring the phone, then read the message to the other guy, but AFAICT, it isn't very common.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
48. Re:20 years later... by bmo · 2012-05-08 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  >Implying I make character assessments whether someone owns an iPhone or not and they are always negative.
  I thought I was supposed to be a Microsoft hater.
  At least that's what RecoiledSnake calls me.
  --
  BMO
49. Re:20 years later... by Midnight+Thunder · 2012-05-08 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  See, this is the thing...
  A partial standard, using your definition of one, isn't an actual standard at all.
  --
  BMO
  Indeed. Until other companies start using this, then it is purely Apple centric. At least it falls back to SMS. In many ways if the phone service companies didn't charge so much for SMS, then this would never have been an interesting feature. I must admit I have started using Whatsapp in certain cases for this, but until it is standard on all phones, then it still feels like a kludge.
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
50. Re:20 years later... by mr_lizard13 · 2012-05-08 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Nokia. RIM. Microsoft. Vodafone. AT&T. Telefonica. Motorola. Verizon. Orange. Asus. Dell. Samsung.
  
  All these companies. All those years of experience. All that cash. All that potential.
  
  And yet between them all, they couldn't come up with a standard messaging system that worked between their phones, tablets and computers.
  
  Many, many years later, Apple did. And they should give that away for free?
  
  Pah.
  
  --
  "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
51. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yes unlike this chart, it is very hard to figure out the cost of your plan .. I know charts can be very confusing
  http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=prepayItem&action=viewPrepayOverview
  Or this one from ATT
  http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/cell-phone-plans/pyg-cell-phone-plans.jsp?wtSlotClick=1-007FTV-0-2&_requestid=186952
  Or this one from Team Mobile
  http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/pay-as-you-go-plans
  You do not have to pay .20 per txt and it is very easy to figure out the plan that works best for you (well I guess since many in the USA by the time they get to HS can not balance a checkbook so basic addition and subtraction is elusive it really is not so easy) ... I can not find an actual study that has the number of people that take the very basic most expensive prepay option as you claim (ie 20c per txt or 25c/min) since an average phone call takes more then 3 min based at least on this article not just because I felt it was true (ie $1 on the perpay)
  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_length_of_a_phone_call
  With prepay you have to use up the funds you put on your phone it almost doesn't make sense to do the 100% pay as you go option unless you know that on any given day you will never make a call more then 3 min long and the phone is really just for emergencies (not 911 emergencies) and even then if you get the 100/year plan (that is less then 10/month for the not so math inclined) and the $2/day option the most you will pay on any given day you use the phone is $2 the least is 0 and each txt is .02 so you are better off sending a txt message then making a call if you can. Yes you do need some basic math and to pay attention to what you do.
  F you dude. Why does the entire world send th students to our universities.? Because they are the best in the world. Why os ot tat America consistantly produces more Noble prize winners then the entire world combined. F- you dude.
52. Re:20 years later... by detritus. · 2012-05-08 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that the character limit for SMS is part of the Signaling System 7 (SS7) specification, which is why there's a character limit. It is not intended, nor ever was to transfer data, so really you're comparing apples to oranges on a technical level.
  That said, SS7 has been around for a long time, and doesn't cost telephone companies a penny more as it's the integral part of our public-switched telephone network.
53. Re:20 years later... by Cimexus · 2012-05-08 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  Well the message would just be dropped if you sent it to a non-mobile phone.
  But who in their right mind would try SMSing a landline number? In most places mobile numbers look different than landline numbers (start with a particular prefix, or have a different number of digits etc.)*
  *(North America is a notable exception here ... IIRC, mobile numbers don't look any different than landline numbers in the US and Canada, so I suppose you could accidentally SMS a landline number there)
54. Re:20 years later... by umghhh · 2012-05-08 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  so SMS works as was stated before - what do I need the iDingy for then?
55. Re:20 years later... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-11 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  It used to be that respected business men would set their profit levels at around 10%
The charge by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 00:53 · Score: 1

What does the typical person pay per month?
Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 00:56 · Score: -1

...and Steve Jobs invented it too!!
all on GSM? by shortscruffydave · 2012-05-08 01:00 · Score: 1

"Two thirds of the world's population, 4 billion people, use cell phones today, and all of them have access to SMS" Are they really all using the GSM standard, which provides SMS? I thought that in some developing countries, there were still analogue (i.e. pre-GSM) networks in use?
1. Re:all on GSM? by Hian+Bosu · 2012-05-08 01:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Not really, most developing countries bypass the entire analogue mobile stage and go straight to digital.
2. Re:all on GSM? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the US was one of the last countries on earth to get rid of analog back in 2008. While most developing countries never introduced analog and went straight to GSM.
3. Re:all on GSM? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, sort of like how they tend to bypass landlines completely as the infrastructure for basic cell service is easier to set up in those types of places. As well as easier to maintain.
4. Re:all on GSM? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  GSM is nearly ubiquitous in developing countries. I've been to a significant number of 3rd world (and 2nd) and GSM has been the prevailing standard with an occasional CDMA set showing up.
5. Re:all on GSM? by 91degrees · 2012-05-08 01:29 · Score: 2
  
  I think they didn't even consider starting mobile networks until the richer countries were going digital. When you're building from scratch, it makes sense to use newer technology. It may even be cheaper.
6. Re:all on GSM? by wvmarle · 2012-05-08 02:40 · Score: 2
  
  For large areas in many developing countries it's the only option you have on telephony, as they never had wired networks installed. After all installing a wired network costs a lot more than building up a wireless network (saves digging up every single street to every single home to get a cable in the ground). Their major cities may have a wired network, but the countryside not.
  Possibly in some developing countries they have analogue networks, but that will be rare. Just like developed countries have upgraded their analogue networks by now; this is again relatively cheap to do compared to upgrading say copper to fibre.
7. Re:all on GSM? by Art+Popp · 2012-05-08 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Comment was insightful. I accidentally clicked Redundant. (Never sneeze while moderating).
  Undoing accidental mis-moderation by posting as self. Nothing to see here.
Isn't everyone except the US GSM by metrix007 · 2012-05-08 01:13 · Score: 3, Informative

I mean, with probably a few exceptions?
I've always liked GSM because it is easy to swap out simcards, while CDMA seems to flash the information into the phone making it much harder to reuse...

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
1. Re:Isn't everyone except the US GSM by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  China and India, you know, about half the world
  Japan and South Korea too
2. Re:Isn't everyone except the US GSM by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  I seem to recall hearing a country or two besides the US that supports CDMA, but it's not really important enough for me to spend 30 seconds doing a Google search because, yes, for all practical purposes the entire rest of the world uses GSM. I've been a mobile phone user in the US for 20 years in various parts of the country and without veering off into a rant about carrier lock-in, I'll just say that both systems have their pros and cons. Generlly speaking, CDMA phones have almost always given me better call quality and my experience is that signal penetration into buildings is clearly better with CDMA. I'm currently in the NYC and for the past few weeks have been evaluating two phones side by side to see if I want to continue with Verizon (CDMA carrier) or switch to AT&T (GSM) and I honestly can't say that there's significant enough difference to really debate. I've been a Verizon customer for 12 years, but the two things that are pushing me to evaluate AT&T are that 1) Verizon won't replace my problematic phone because my contract is not up--it's cheaper to pay a cancellation fee and switch to AT&T and 2) I use the phone for work a lot and on CDMA it is not possible to be on a voice call and simultaneously connect to the internet. For a business phone I'm finding that a big limitation.
3. Re:Isn't everyone except the US GSM by metrix007 · 2012-05-08 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Those countries are mixed, not predominately CDMA like the US is, AFAIK
  
  --
  If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
4. Re:Isn't everyone except the US GSM by CastrTroy · 2012-05-08 01:51 · Score: 2
  
  Very much agree. It's pretty much the reason I stopped using Bell in Canada. They did (still do?) use CDMA technology. Which meant that when it came time to buy a new phone, even though I bought the phone outright from them, they charged me a $35 activation fee. If it was GSM, I could have just bought a phone anywhere, swapped out the SIM card and they couldn't say anything about it. Although I personally find that CDMA has better call quality, the fact that the network provider can charge you to switch phones is so ridiculous that I can deal with the difference in call quality.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
5. Re:Isn't everyone except the US GSM by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  While these countries might not support traditional GSM, they have UMTS networks. So if your "GSM" is not more than 5 years old it might work (if it supports the frequencies in those countries).
6. Re:Isn't everyone except the US GSM by MachDelta · 2012-05-08 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Look up?
  2 of 3 major Canadian carriers were CDMA outfits.
7. Re:Isn't everyone except the US GSM by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, China Mobile has a CDMA network on the side... It serves a few percent of their customers. Everyone else is on China Mobile GSM.
8. Re:Isn't everyone except the US GSM by the_humeister · 2012-05-08 03:23 · Score: 2
  
  It's closer to 50/50 for GSM/CDMA in the USA. Verizon+Sprint =162 million CDMA subscribers.
  AT&T+T-Mobile=137million GSM subscribers.
  I suppose if you add in the smaller players (MetroPCS, U.S. Cellular, Cricket, etc.) you do end up with a larger majority of CDMA.
9. Re:Isn't everyone except the US GSM by w_dragon · 2012-05-08 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Bell switched to GSM over a year ago. I doubt they'll drop the CDMA network as long as they can charge Verizon users massive roaming charges when they come to Canada, but they only sell GSM phones now.
10. Re:Isn't everyone except the US GSM by compro01 · 2012-05-08 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Bell, Telus, Sasktel, and MTS all have legacy CDMA networks, but they also have GSM/UMTS "4G" networks they're using going forward. I don't think Bell and Telus sell CDMA devices anymore, but Sasktel does and they'll probably keep selling the M800 until Motorola stops making it. It's popular with the guys who work the oil sands and extreme rural areas is one case where GSM just doesn't work worth a damn thanks to the excessive cell size restriction.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
11. Re:Isn't everyone except the US GSM by Cimexus · 2012-05-08 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Complete with .002c/kB roaming charges :P
you fAil it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:14 · Score: -1

overly morbid and 805, DARPA saw BSD racIst? How is Believe their indecision and
Please ignore by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:20 · Score: 0, Funny

Testing if post as AC appears
1. Re:Please ignore by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  Sure
Not so popular in the US? by clickclickdrone · 2012-05-08 01:21 · Score: 2

I get the impression that sending a text is way more expensive in the US than elsewhere so hasn't really taken off the way it has elsewhere? I get 1,000 a month 'free' in my monthly payment. Most people I know are on unlimited. It's certainly not uncommon for people to get through 5,000+ a month. I really don't see the problem. It's cheap, simple and works. Sure you can use WhatsApp etc (free for how long?) but most people I know don't have it and won't installit because, well, they like SMS for reasons given.

--
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
1. Re:Not so popular in the US? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  It's incredibly popular in the US, every carrier offers unlimited messages and I don't think I could find a set-up that doesn't support it at all if I tried for weeks.
  Most carriers also offer nation-wide or continent wide options, making the whole switching SIMs and managing different numbers thing seem like kind of a hassle rather than a feature if anyone were using it the way most Europeans I know do.
2. Re:Not so popular in the US? by clickclickdrone · 2012-05-08 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly I was *totally* wrong so thanks for that. I'm now wondering where all the people I've seen on here complaining about the cost actually live!
  
  --
  I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
3. Re:Not so popular in the US? by vlm · 2012-05-08 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  I get the impression that sending a text is way more expensive in the US than elsewhere so hasn't really taken off the way it has elsewhere?
  Its much more expensive and slower than making a voice call and harder to use than email because of the length limit. It only makes sense if you're in a no-talking but cellphone-ok environment (student in a lecture hall, etc) or if you're multi-tasking about ten conversations at the same time (teenage girl stereotype).
  I find 5000 to be an unlikely exaggeration. Assuming 30 days per month and 8 hrs/day of sleep/shower/otherwise disconnected time per day, that's a constant load of one text message every six minutes. I do not believe your stereotypical median American can read that fast. 500/month, that is excessive yet believable, something like one per hour. I am basing this on theory, my experience is zero per hour because I don't text. I do a lot of email and web stuff, but not text.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
4. Re:Not so popular in the US? by clickclickdrone · 2012-05-08 01:47 · Score: 2
  
  Its much more expensive and slower than making a voice call and harder to use than email because of the length limit
  Hang on, the other person said they're free/unlimited? As for speed etc, how long does it take, 5 seconds? What do you use them for? Everyone I know just uses them for small msgs i.e. 'I'm at the Theatre', 'OK, be there in 5', 'cool' etc. As for the size limit, That's pretty notional. Just type as much as you want, the phone carrier splits them up and puts them together again so the recipient just sees one message even if it's 500 chars long or whatever.
  
  I find 5000 to be an unlikely exaggeration
  Not so. My friend had a package with 5,000 texts a month and regular broke that so had to move to an unlimited package.
  
  --
  I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
5. Re:Not so popular in the US? by sohmc · 2012-05-08 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  There are times when sending a text is more "appropriate" than calling. For example, if you're in a noisy environment and need to get someone's attention. Equally so, if you're in a very quiet environment and need to talk to some discretely.
  Texts can be better than e-mails since they require the sender to be precise with his/her words and to be as short as possible.
  That doesn't negate how expense texts really are verses how much they should be. Like many things, text fees are a fee of convenience, not of actual value. I'm pretty sure this is why the cost of texts haven't gone up in a while. I think the carriers don't want to rock the boat. Any increase is likely to result in more people seeking free alternatives.
  
  --
  We don't live in Shouldland.
6. Re:Not so popular in the US? by Dishevel · 2012-05-08 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever met a teenage girl?
  Lately the boys are getting just as bad.
  At high traffic times sending and receiving I have seen people go 4 or 5 texts a minute.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
7. Re:Not so popular in the US? by Solozerk · 2012-05-08 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Same impression here - I pay 19.90 euros each month (in France) and I get unlimited calls (towards landlines and mobiles in 12+ countries), unlimited internet access (capped after a few GB, though), and unlimited SMS/MMS. The prices in the US seems completely crazy by comparison - and the same appears to be true of the Internet access prices there (especially given the apparent level of service quality which seems quite poor).
  I wonder if someone tried to study the impact the availability/prices of mobile & internet connections to a modern society as a whole. Instinctively, I'd say that the more people have mobile handsets/internet access, the more productive and efficient the society is (just from the fact, for example, that people might learn usable skills and develop critical thinking by themselves thanks to the web). So in effect it might be a good idea to lower those prices through government control - but then again, this is the US so I guess AT&T, Verizon and so on are basically in charge of that and wouldn't let such a thing happen.
8. Re:Not so popular in the US? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  Be glad you have what you got. Here in the US, I'm paying $450/month (~346 Euros) for a basic internet service for my place and a smartphone plan with 5 gigs of data, unlimited texts, and 600 minutes. Switching providers is out of the question since the cable company is "meh" at best.
  I wish I got on when the telcos had unlimited data, but no cell company in the US allows for that these days, so you end up spending $50 if you want to transfer a DVD's worth of data.
9. Re:Not so popular in the US? by matthewv789 · 2012-05-08 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Except that most every carrier in the US charges $20/month extra for that unlimited SMS plan (or else $0.25 - $0.50 per text - sent or received! - with no plan). Yes, the other thing is that you pay equally to RECEIVE texts as to send them, even if they're spam.
  Sometimes they bundle it in all-inclusive voice-SMS-data plans for like $99/month, but no, it's never free in the US.
10. Re:Not so popular in the US? by matthewv789 · 2012-05-08 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Hang on, the other person said they're free/unlimited?
  
  The other person was wrong. They are only free when included in some all-inclusive voice/data plan, which usually runs about $99/month. Since it's usually possible to add an adequate amount of data to voice for about $20/month less than that (without SMS), it's not at all true that most phone subscribers have an SMS plan, or that it comes for free. (Note: since I don't typically watch video for hours on end or stream music all day long, I've never used more than about 25% of my available bandwidth on one of the lower-tier data plans despite tethering my laptop, especially because my phone uses local Wi-Fi at home and work.)
  On the other hand, every SMS plan I know of offers unlimited messages.
  
  My friend had a package with 5,000 texts a month and regular broke that so had to move to an unlimited package.
  In the US they don't have limited SMS plans, it's either unlimited or nothing. Those with unlimited plans may be texting thousands per month, but those without, paying per text (sent or received) typically send very few. I don't have a plan, and rarely text, but haven't blocked SMS (which I did seriously consider, and I assume many people probably do, especially older people) because it's occasionally useful. The occasional spam which costs me $0.50 annoys me, but ultimately doesn't cost me very much (it's usually not more than about one per month).
11. Re:Not so popular in the US? by xianzombie · 2012-05-08 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm...basically we have a "family plan" with 2 phones on it. Both HTC Android devices, capable of 4g (but non existent). I'd much rather pay 19.90E.
  Talk 1500 anytime minutes $ 110.00
  Additional line charges (1 line) $ 19.99
  Nights and weekends starting at 7pm
  Any Mobile, AnytimeSM
  Mobile to mobile
  Allow International Calls (1 line)
  Messages - Text, Pictures and Video
  Unlimited Data - Web, email, TV, music, GPS and more
  4G speeds in select cities
  Premium Data $ 20.00
  Total Equipment Protection (2 lines) $ 16.00
  Plan charges $165.99 + Taxes and fees
  Average total monthly bill $167.76
12. Re:Not so popular in the US? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  I live in a under developed country and I pay $7 for 128 kbps unlimited data plan $0.003 for each sms sent (no charge for received) and $0.06 for each minute in a voice call.
13. Re:Not so popular in the US? by kimvette · 2012-05-08 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  I find 5000 to be an unlikely exaggeration.
  Not so much.
  My texts:
  March-April
  Messaging Unlimited 1,283
  Feb-March
  Messaging Unlimited 1,719
  Jan-Feb
  Messaging Unlimited 3,065
  Dec-Jan
  Messaging Unlimited 1,650
  I'm 40 and don't text as much as twenty-something friends. I don't think 5,000 texts is infeasible.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
14. Re:Not so popular in the US? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? I'm in the US. You can definitely get a limited texting plan. Verizon has a few tiers: 100 texts/month, 250 texts/month, ... not sure what the higher ones are. Someone upthread mentioned a similar set of plans on AT&T. On the other hand, I recently switched to a smartphone on T-Mobile, and most of their plans that include data also have unlimited texting.
15. Re:Not so popular in the US? by vlm · 2012-05-08 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  My previous carrier parasite was virgin mobile and all I remember was on a pay as you go plan with per minute billing each text message cost more than 2 minutes of voice but less than 3 minutes of voice. In other words a phone call was 10 cents/min billed by minute and a text was 25 cents flat rate tx or rx. Obviously these rates have changed a lot but this was "recently" accurate at one moment. Its unlikely a single text could contain more information than a 2.5 minute phone call.
  Thats where I get my "texts are more expensive than a phone call". It would be interesting to know if they're still more expensive.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
16. Re:Not so popular in the US? by vlm · 2012-05-08 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  Thats... amazing. If I'm not getting overly personal, what are you doing with thousands of texts per month? Or if that's not gonna fly what are "people in general" doing with thousands of texts per month? I don't know anyone personally with those kind of stats, so I obviously can't find out any other way than asking here.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
17. Re:Not so popular in the US? by amRadioHed · 2012-05-08 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Slower then making a voice call? By the time the person you're calling picks up the phone I could have typed a quick message and hit send. Then you have the standard conversation start and end filler that probably makes your call 3 times longer then the short message you wanted to convey.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
18. Re:Not so popular in the US? by clickclickdrone · 2012-05-08 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  paying per text (sent or received) /blockquote> Some people pay to receive? WTF?
  
  --
  I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
19. Re:Not so popular in the US? by PhotoJim · 2012-05-08 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Voice is best for some communications; text is best for others. What exactly is the point of this debate?
  The simpler something is, the better SMS works. The more complex it is, the more likely a short telephone conversation is going to help the problem better than a multi-minute SMS exchange.
  This is sort of like arguing that trucks are better than cars - cars are more fun to drive and more manoeuvrable but just try fitting that queen bed in the back to take it across town.
20. Re:Not so popular in the US? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  indeed, spoken word is crap for a lot of things, like addresses, phone numbers, etc.
  'Ohh hang on a sec, I'll just get a pen...',
  'Sorry, can you say that again...',
  'How do you spell it?''
2012 - 1982 = 30 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:31 · Score: 0

That is all.
1. Re:2012 - 1982 = 30 by Scott64 · 2012-05-08 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  From the summary: "The first GSM handests were approved for sale in May 1992"
On the subject of old SIM cards... by Viol8 · 2012-05-08 01:40 · Score: 1

Am I the only person who used to prefer when you could slot the entire credit card sized card into the phone without taking the battery out? It was so much friggin easier - I used to have 3 cards which I could swap around as and when needed and it literally took seconds to change. Ok , some smartphones have gone back to that and now have a SIM slot on the outside but most STILL require you to disassemble the phones first. Why??
1. Re:On the subject of old SIM cards... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  It makes it harder to defraud the phone company by swapping SIMs mid-call.
2. Re:On the subject of old SIM cards... by newcastlejon · 2012-05-08 01:53 · Score: 2
  
  Ok , some smartphones have gone back to that and now have a SIM slot on the outside but most STILL require you to disassemble the phones first. Why??
  Because saying that space is at a premium in modern phones is a massive understatement. The space needed to accommodate what you describe, especially with a full-size SIM card just isn't available. As this image shows, the space devoted to even a micro-SIM is a significant fraction of what is available. The SIM holder is directly beneath the A4 chip and it's fairly plain to see why Apple are pushing to do away with physical SIMs altogether. FWIW I'm still against the idea, but I do see why they're so keen on it.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
3. Re:On the subject of old SIM cards... by wvmarle · 2012-05-08 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Most people will simply have two phones for two SIM cards. Swapping them out sucks, no matter how easy the process is. And there are quite some dual-SIM phones that allow you to have a second SIM (targeted at frequent travelers to have a home number and a foreign number, and save on roaming cost).
4. Re:On the subject of old SIM cards... by qbast · 2012-05-08 02:56 · Score: 2
  
  I would rather have single phone with two SIM slots.
5. Re:On the subject of old SIM cards... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Which are readily available, for not a lot of money, so just do that.
6. Re:On the subject of old SIM cards... by Cimexus · 2012-05-08 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  The day Apple gets rid of physical SIMs is the day I switch to another type of phone. I have multiple microSIMs that I switch into my iPhone regularly while travelling. I have SIMs for Australia, Singapore, USA, UK and NZ and I keep them in my little travel wallet with my passport. Usually, I perform the SIM swap while on the plane so I'm ready to go when I land.
  The only reason I'd accept ditching SIMs is if multiple network providers could be easily set up on the phone itself (i.e. a virtual SIM card done in software) and it was supported in as wide a variety of places as offer physical SIMs now.
  Or, if global roaming rates using my home provider were massively reduced (i.e. by 90%+).
vs cdma & friends? gsm interference by Artemis3 · 2012-05-08 01:58 · Score: 1

I hate it how gsm handsets interfere with computer speakers, you can always tell when someone carries a gsm instead of, say, cdma or its later incarnations. Its also silly to learn by the speakers noise you are going to get a call before the actual phone rings... And, have found gsm despite in theory being more rebust, struggles more in bad situation such as inside buildings.
A single operator in my country happens to service both cdma and gsm phones, with the latter being more heavily pushed. Perhaps it can simply accomodate more lines per cell?
I mentioned computer speakers but the noise made by gsm handsets actually affects most recording equipment, such as studio or even live tv broadcasts (ie, a guest in a show forgets to turn off the phone...), and you get to hear the familiar beep beep beep, beep beep beep; twaaaaaaaa twaaaaaa twaaaaa thing.

--
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
1. Re:vs cdma & friends? gsm interference by bytesex · 2012-05-08 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  THAT is what you have against GSM?! Wow. And here I thought on this website we would soon venture into a discussion about its now broken crypto. But no, speaker noise. Wow.
  
  --
  Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
2. Re:vs cdma & friends? gsm interference by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  THAT is what you have against GSM?! Wow. And here I thought on this website we would soon venture into a discussion about its now broken crypto. But no, speaker noise. Wow.
  Bring the broken crypto topic up in a non-douchey manner and maybe people will consider talking about it.
Not all of them have SMS. by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2012-05-08 02:48 · Score: 0

The people in Kashmir (India) do not have access to SMS.
It has something to do with terrorists I was told last autumn...
Just saying...

(and maybe there are others as well who are shut off)

--
rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
The real problem by tom229 · 2012-05-08 02:57 · Score: 1

Everyone's kind of missing the real problem here: monopolized industry. This is how they get away with gouging the customer with these dead paradigm technologies. SMS, long distance charges, roaming, and per MB billing all should be a thing of the past. The only reason they aren't is that, in an industry with little competition, the telecom cartel can pretty much do whatever they want.

--
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
t4co by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 03:19 · Score: -1

are She had taken of the GNAA I every chance I got The mobo blew code sharing surveys show that you down. It was rapid, butts are exposed part of GNAA if driven oUt by the a losing battle; well-known clearly become has steadily lost its earlier
_All_ users? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 04:02 · Score: 0

It's not true that all cell phone users have access to SMS in Japan.
In fact, only recently SMS became an alternative to e-mail.
SMS just not expensive in US any longer... by rwade · 2012-05-08 04:24 · Score: 1

Fine. I guess you've never had $50 in also carte text charges in a single month and a carrier who refused to sell you a text plan.
I, on the other hand, have.
Well, this certainly wasn't this year -- or so I hope. If you're in the United States, you can likely choose AT&T's gophone which will sell you as many text messages per month pre-paid as you'd like. You can buy a 200 messages plan for $.024 per message or a 1000 messages plan for $.01 per message. You can buy 2 200 messages plan or three 1000 message plans. Or you can buy an unlimited plan.
You can even choose to only text if you'd like to avoid costly voice service. Bottom line -- SMS is not as expensive as it may have been 10 years ago when you got a $50 text charge.
1. Re:SMS just not expensive in US any longer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-08 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  It was in 2009. 40 cents a message.
  AT&T had me on an old plan and refused to sell me a text plan unless I switched my voice plan. Okay, but when I went through that 45 minute exercise, I discovered at the end that they said my GSM phone that I had been using for years with them was "incompatible", and they were going to force me to get a new phone. And, of course, the two year slavery that this would entail. All of this to get a text plan... "look, my phone is *obviously* compatible with your network and SMS otherwise how have I racked up these charges?"
  Needless to say, I'm on Verizon prepaid now.
Expensive gasoline by Quila · 2012-05-08 05:43 · Score: 1

$1.50 for a liter? That's over $5.67 a gallon. That is only cheap compared to countries with punitive taxes on gasoline that are several multiples of the cost of the gasoline itself.
1. Re:Expensive gasoline by legojenn · 2012-05-08 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, for cheap gas, come to Canada, it's only $1.27/litre here (at least in the Ottawa/Gatineau area). Sure you won't get cell service in 90% of the country, but the cell companies are so scummy you wouldn't want to deal with them anyhow.
  
  --
  I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
2. Re:Expensive gasoline by Cimexus · 2012-05-08 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  $5.67/gallon is fairly cheap compared to virtually ALL Western countries except for US/Canada. It's certainly less than in any European country, Japan, Korea, Australia, NZ, etc etc.
Feeling Old by ozbon · 2012-05-08 21:28 · Score: 1

You do realise that this means there are now people of voting age who have *never* been without text-messaging ?

Damn, but that makes me feel old.

--
I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...