SMS vs. E-mail? 203
Chase asks: "I have a Motorola I85s (Java phones rock!). The issue I've run into is that from what I've been able to find out, most phones overseas (I'm in the US) support SMS to send text messages between mobile devices. Also alot of two-way devices are now popping up in the US. Nextel (my service provider) only lets me use SMS to other Nextel customers. Their two messaging service is e-mail based. So I end up using a web site to send SMS messages to my friends overseas but we'd really like to send directly each others phones. Is this just a problem with Nextel or do all mobile phone companies in the US have this issue? Are most of the current crop of two-way devices coming out in the US email based, SMS, or something else?"
"All of you anti-Microsoft people would probably like to know that if you have Nextels national plan and a I85s you get the ability to send and recieve from a Hotmail or MSN account for free. I'm paying $5 a month for the regular email support. I read something about MSN only supporting non-standard protocols for email, do we also have to worry about Microsoft messing with moble messaging? (and yes, I have a Passport option on my phone)"
Re:Retarded anyway (Score:1)
Open protocol service forthcoming. (Score:1)
Right now we're doing a lot of research into establishing a virtual SMSC via the SMPP protocol so we can have a direct SMS-to-SMTP adaptor, so if you're really interested in this topic, check out our news site occasionally in the next few months, we might have something interesting someday. =)
Re:Wired News has an article... (Score:1)
$troll = 1;
$status = "attack on sense of nationalism";
printf($country."trash" . $USNukeArsenal $randmSocalisticInsult);
Else:
while ($foreigners == 0) {
printf("Buy Coke!");
printf("Buy HotDogs!");
printf("Buy Donuts!");
printf("Watch TV!");
EndIf;
SMS/email connectivity (Score:1)
The Software Labs [softwarelabs.com] has a product called PageAbility which has been bridging this gap for several years. Though it's not the best solution, by far, it does work fairly well if you have a MS Windows system which can be left on all day.
Hardware is always a problem, due to the fact that once it's been distributed, there's virtually no way to revamp the entire system. Of course, many phones can be programmed remotely, but major investments must be made in order to get the back end to deal as well.
Therefore, we're left to stop-gap solutions. Thanks, big multi-national mega-conglomerate corporations!
Re:Retarded anyway (Score:1)
If we get off our military peddle stall for a second and take a look around, how come other countries can manage a modern fighting force without requiring huge soaves of spectrum being allocated to military use? The Brits have a decent Navy and Army, yet their spectrum isn't ruled by the forces. If our forces are more technologically advanced at least in theory we should only require slim spectrum allocations, certainly no more than other countries.
I don't think you can really blame Europe for US domestic problems. In fact, if the EU started complaining US frequency allocations within the USA, you think they would be given a warm welcome? I can just imagine how
Re:GSM vs. TDMA vs. CDMA (Score:1)
chap
Re:Nokia 8890 (Score:1)
One.Tel, which built its network using GSM1800 only, went out of business few weeks ago and was shut down completely. Telstra ended up taking most of the home and mobile customers.
-----
Re:US has problems (Score:1)
Re:Similar in the UK several years ago (Score:1)
Re:US has problems (Score:1)
Re:It's a technical issue (Score:1)
Re:SMS internationally (Score:1)
But Vodafone's GPRS prices are through the roof (NZ$30/mb), and no-one seems to think that prepay customers are really interested in data services (the only viable option for prepay data is using telecom, and it's *not* advertised).
--
Re:European phones ... (Score:1)
Almost all of the cellular phone operators have deals with (almost all) international operators (roaming). You can call almost at local charges if you are calling in the same (roaming) charges.
Some even provide a server that you can roam in the United States without changing your phone (if your phone is having US std's of'course, else you'll need to get one with a SIM card
Freaker / TuC
Everybody get stoned (biblically) (Score:1)
A slashdotter talking to an AOLer about SMS:
[AOLer]:I wish I could send e-mail to my friends with my cell phone!
[slashdotter]:You can, it's called SMS.
[AOLer]:So like you mean I could use AOL on my phone?
[slashdotter]:It's different from e-mail.
[AOLer]:But I want to send an e-mail to my friends not some weird thing!
[slashdotter]:You'd be sending them something like an e-mail but it's different.
[AOLer]:Shut up geek!
[slashdotter]:*mumbling and jotting something down* You're going on my list!
I just don't see SMS catching on in the laziest country on the planet. What American is going to spend a bunch of time writing email with only 12 keys for input? It'd be cool more companies offered it though so you at least had the option. You can fit alot of information into 160 characters, there are plenty of uses for SMS on PCS networks hint:dedicated SMS pagers for professionals and regular consumers.
Re:GSM in the US (Score:1)
Entangled in the free-market ideology that is ruling the mind of every european bureaucrat nowadays, decision has been made not to make any decisions about the next generation, and to let competition, not only between companies, but also between governments, yield to the best for the consummer.
Hence the UMTS fiasco, a technical failure and financial disaster that puts at stake the very existence of previously prosperous European telcos, will never give birth to any viable product or service, and has dramaticaly delayed the exploitation of current technology for intersting internet-on-the-road services (expecially through GPRS packet tehcnology).
This and the US still struggling to have a mobile voice network that is not a joke, and the whole world can watch the Japanese comfortably take a 4-to-5 years headstart in mobile internet usage and tehcnologies. Japan : the country where telecommunications are the most regulated in the world, the last country where the main telco has a de facto monopoly.
Re:GSM in the US (Score:1)
Yeah, what the Hell's up with Austin? I was just down there last week and thought it was supposed to be a big tech town. Well, my hotel had ethernet connections, but my phone bill's going to be obnoxious this month because of all the roaming Verizon calls I was making. Oh well, the bars/music were still great, anyway...
Cheers,
Re:Inertia (Score:1)
Hmmm...so that's why Russia never made it to the moon.
What does that say about the US mobile infrastructure then?
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "I drank what?"
Re:Traveling with Cingular Wireless GSM phone (Score:1)
You call *666 to get customer service?
666?
And you expect it to work???
Re:column A or B? (Score:1)
Minor point, but at my apartment in Stockholm (Sweden) I can get cable internet via UPC for 229 SEK/Month (approximately 23 USD) and ADSL via Telia for 330 SEK/Month (approximately 33 USD).
Oh - and we get "dinky" text messaging.
Also you can now get GPRS (always on, internet connected 2.5G mobile).
What was your point again?
Re:US has problems (Score:1)
I've got a UK Orange mobile for when I travel in Europe, a SprintPCS phone for personal use, and a Nextel for work. Based on sound quality alone, US phone networks beat GSM hands down (at least Orange's network).
How about features? Can your precious GSM phone networks do Voicecommand [sprintpcs.com] or DirectConnect [nextel.com]? I doubt it.
I think it's better to compare inter-country GSM roaming to interstate roaming in the US. My Sprint & Nextel phone work in almost every major market in the US (and Sprint even in Canada) - that's all that matters to most people in this country.
Retarded anyway (Score:1)
Well, in some things US lags way behind, and unfortunately this has shown no signs of getting better. Makes me happy to live in Europe
Re:GSM/USA - I thought it actually worked (Score:1)
Last time I've been there I picked up an Ericsson thingy for about $400, it works on 900 & 1800 MHz as well as on the 1900 MHz standard in the US.
I inserted my European SIM card, and was able to use the phone in New York, Detroit & Vegas - pretty much everywhere I've been on that trip.
The only downside was people who didn't know I was overseas, calling me at 7 fucking am in the morning. Oh yeah, and then there was the phone bill, about $2 per minute with those stupid roaming charges.
SMS + Palm Pilot (Score:1)
the good thing about GSM and PDA is this:
1) phonegook from my phone is (within 10sec) in the Palm Pilot memory
2) all my SMS are in palm within few sec.
3) I can send (yes, short, but it works) SMS, e-mail and so on using my Palm very quickly
4) i can synchro my calendar with the phone (ericsson R320s)
5) i can use WAP with the palm
and so on. So IMHO PDA+GMS phone really rocks! And it is VERY cheap in Czech republic (WAP - 0.77 Kc per minute! It is 50 minutes of WAP connection for $1 !!)
Re:US has problems (Score:1)
I figure until GSM becomes more widespread in the US they won't get a decent and quick SMS. I have read however that it is becoming more widespread in the North East (New York, Mass., etc., ).
I think the US get better pricing deals though - around $50 a month for 1500mins of calls I heard from some services.
Re:Retarded anyway & Nokia (Score:1)
Re:Wired News has an article... (Score:2)
SMS uses the control channel, this layer is normally used to alert your phone to an incoming call, exchange public keys and hand you over to different cell sites etc, your GSM phone is always locked onto this channel when it's switched on.
SMS was originally created so operators could send new settings to phones, it's still used for this purpose and you can also send new ringtones and logo's via SMS.
I can remember when SMS was a little known feature in GSM phones, operators never even charged for texting until about 1996 when they started to hit critical mass and take off in a big way. You might be mistaken in thinking this was all planned, however SMS was an obscure technical feature that took the operators by surprise, it's one of those unexpected applications never planned for.
I hear the ICQ developers took their inspiration from SMS, which is fitting since you can do SMS to ICQ in both directions now.
Re:Wired News has an article... (Score:2)
Since mobiles by their very nature roaming across huge distances you can't penalise the caller or the recipient on distances or location. In fact, apart from specialist call-back cards I've never seen recipients paying for incoming calls. (what an odd scheme of things).
It's a similar thing with international calls too since cell phones have their own location independent area codes (for instance all mobiles begin with 07xxx in the UK), it's the same across Europe.
Say I call my brother's cell phone in France from the UK, it's the same charge if I call him in Switzerland or Germany. I don't have to dial different country codes for each country (how am I meant to know what country he's in without speaking to him, or even know he's abroad? catch 22) so you just dial the same number you do in the UK, and if the cell is roaming in France it gets patched over to their GSM network.
In fact, many of the web to SMS gateways take advantage of this unified network, the messages goes to an Eastern European nation then is injected onto the GSM network and finds its way to the UK or France etc. Companies buy huge SMS quotas from an operator in Prague for example.
As for the call allowances, we get those too, certain tariffs [orange.co.uk] include 10-20 txt messages a day and 50 minutes of free talk time per day for instance, and free access to voice mail etc. Then there's the "pay as you go" phones that incur no monthly fees, but you pay more for the calls.
Re:US has problems (Score:2)
Having said that, I used to call my friend in the Netherlands on her cellphone, but then my long distance company changed the rate. If I were calling a landline Dutch phone I would pay 11cents per minute, but a Dutch cellphone cost 55cents per minute. It was a great transatlantic deal until they raises rates for cellphones. I stopped calling her because that was dumb.
While she didn't pay anything to receive calls, outgoing calls were outrageously priced imho. Sprint PCS offers the following right now--3000 minutes for $50. Outgoing/incoming/long distance. At best, my landline phone could have 4.5cents interstate long distance--but if all 3000 minutes were used for outgoing long distance--well that's about two cents a minute. You can't beat the outgoing rate, and in fact, I use my cell for long distance service exclusively, opting not to have it on my landline phone (which would be irrelevant if it were not for my fax machine.)
SMS is cute and all...but I don't see what the purpose is given this system. That (and not to start a flame war) I am one of those who subscribes to the idea that CDMA and TDMA is superior technology to GSM. I used to have a GSM phone (Aerial) and I have been much happier with CDMA.
European phones ... (Score:2)
It's fast, a maximum of 160chars can be typed in, with nokia phone's you can send pictures together with the message, if the receiver's phone is on you see a "delivered" message (when option is on), if unreacheable the receiver will receive the message if his phone has been turned on inside 24hrs.
Some webbased services (alike MTN (SMS) [mtnsms.co.za] and others) offer (10) SMS's for per day, from the phone to another phone we pay 5Bef (for about 10 cents), in holland the double.
We use short internet terms like LOL,
Freaker / TuC
Re:Traveling with Cingular Wireless GSM phone (Score:2)
See http://www.uwcc.org/pressrelease/uwccdoc32348.htm
US regulation is the problem (Score:2)
The European regulators took the view that a single standard would promote competition better - everyone uses GSM, so consumers can choose from a bigger pool of GSM phones, GSM operators and so on, than if there were multiple fragmented standards.
The European market is not really more regulated than the US, it's just that they took the opportunity to standardise the technology not just the spectrum. The result is that GSM now has just over 500 million users world-wide, about 70% of the market, and is gaining share in the US and most other places.
Re:SMS Carriers and why. (Score:2)
Your comments seem quite specific to Australia - when in Europe I've had little trouble sending SMSs to people back home, although some European operators don't seem to support this, so I have had to roam to a new one occasionally.
Pre-paid SMS internationally didn't work for some time but someone else on this thread said this was now working.
One of the most interesting stories I heard was that when carriers opened up to inter-carrier SMS, *every carrier's* SMS volume went up 20%. Shouldn't be a surprise really, that's why (eventually) the world went to Internet email, after a long period in the Eighties and early Nineties when proprietary email islands dominated... This means that enlightened operators should just open up inter-carrier SMS right now, as they will end up gaining in outbound SMS volumes.
SMS in Europe has achieved a critical mass, so that you know everyone with a mobile phone has SMS, and almost everyone has a mobile of course. Email in the US achieved a similar critical mass much earlier, at least a few years ago, which is why the various wireless email systems have held off true interoperable SMS.
Re:column A or B? (Score:2)
We are not "happy" with our inferior service (Score:2)
People here are NOT happy with substandard service or high prices. Just ask any Chicagoan how they feel about Ameritech (hint: I switched entirely to AT&T wireless, with its additional cost, simply to not have to ever deal with Ameritech again. I made the switch 3 years ago and haven't regretted it for a second
The problem is that our market really isn't as free as you think. The last mile of wire is almost always owned by the local telco monopoly, with a complex web of regulations dictating how and for how much access to that wire will be "sold" to competitors (assuming a particular area has competitors for local service
Far, far easier to nationalize the roads and create a level playing field for all of the players, be they car manufacturers, trucking companies, private buslines (e.g. Greyhound), or taxi services. Ironic, isn't it, that only the most extreme of free market zealots call for privatization of roads, while everyone accepts the privatization of other basic infrastructures that lead to the kinds of telecommunications horrors we have in the US.
It is no coincidence that so many DSL services are going under, and that none of them are the local telcos providing the last mile of wire. Sometime's the FCC manages the balancing act moderately well and a semblance of a free market can exist, even if it is very overpriced. Other times, such as with DSL, they don't get it right and providors die off like flies.
Fortunately, with our highway system, this sort of misguided notion that government has no role to play in owning the infrastructure (it's socialism
Use Jabber!!! (Score:2)
Yep, encrypted chat and IM on a server you control, connecting via your cellphone, wouldn't that be lovely (voice chat too?). Especially if your private jabber server was hosted by havenco.
Provider - Provider agreements (Score:2)
Useless tidbit: Text messaging is all the rage in Europe and a lot of phones come with a preset selection of messages you can send, in addition to those you can write yourself.
BTW a good site for discussing cellphones and the various providers, for those of you in North America is http://www.howardforums.com/ [howardforums.com].
Re:US has problems (Score:2)
But what about if you are not expecting a call? The mobile owner is letting other people have the benefit of calling him when he is not near a landline.
Say if the mobile owner is out shopping and someone desperately wants to talk to him. The mobile owner gets no benefit here. However, the person calling gets the benefit, as without the mobile the caller would have to wait until the mobile owner gets near a landline. Even then the caller would need to know which landline (work, home, partner's etc).
Take another example. My girlfriend gets lost when driving somewhere but has left her map on the kitchen table. She wants to phone me for directions as she is sure that I know how to get there, but I have just gone out to post a letter. So she phones me on my mobile and speaks to me. Who gets the benefit there? I didn't want to go anywhere. I get no benefit from her getting the directions. I didn't need the call. I wasn't waiting for the call. Mobile usage isn't just about being able to make calls. A lot of calls to mobiles are about people needing you, not you needing people.
Also in Europe all providers (that I have seen, having lived in both the UK and Sweden) provide Caller ID for no charge. Digital doesn't come into it as hardly anyone has analogue anymore.
Re:US has problems (Score:2)
Alternatively, shouldn't the caller pay to call the person on the mobile, as they are seeing the benefit of being able to call them when they are away from a landline?
TCS' MDC (Score:2)
Re:SMS internationally (Score:2)
Unless you live at my house, in which case only Telecom's network gets any coverage. Bit of a no-brainer at that point.
Dave
column A or B? (Score:2)
Just Use AIM (Score:2)
Re:Change ... (Score:2)
A Google search on "free sms center numbers" yields an amazing result: a page titled "Free SMS Center numbers". Haven't tried the numbers, but at least one should work.
Re:Wired News has an article... (Score:2)
Re:US has problems (Score:2)
That would explain why two of the major suppliers of landline telephone hardware are located in Europe... Indeed the nearest you'd get to the US would be Nortel in Canada.
For a long time, Europe's telephone network lagged behind in system stability and in price
Didn't AT&T manage to crash their entire network a few years back, hardly that stable.
Let alone that the pricing of calls in the US is hardly easy to work out from the number, or as a consquence of the NANP, even if the call is international or not.
Re:US has problems (Score:2)
Actually the technology was developed in Europe. The situation in the US probably isn't helped by the NIH attitude which the US telephone industry.
And let's face it, even if that's not true, it's gotta be easier for the *much* smaller countries of Europe to update the networks than the whole stinkin' US.
That'll explain how Australia and South Africa have large GSM networks....
Re:ISDN, 64 vs 56 kbps (Score:2)
With complex way to derive a phantom signalling channel.
whereas E1 uses one (or was it more?) of 32 channels exclusively for signalling.
30 bearer channels, 1 siganlling channel, also 64k, the other 64k is used for framing.
Re:column A or B? (Score:2)
How do you fit the cable modem in your pocket???
Re:Retarded anyway (Score:2)
The frequency used dosn't matter. Anyway IIRC it was the Americans who exempted themselves. The rest of the planet dosn't have a problem using GSM, even on different frequencies...
Re:Retarded anyway (Score:2)
The problem is more that this wouldn't work because of the preexisting US charging structure. A charging structure which just didn't exist elsewhere.
End result is that with the US-type system, private users like to keep their numbers quiet because of the cost issue whilst with the Europeanm type system, users often give out their mobile numbers in preference to their home numbers because of the ease of reachability.
There are examples of mobile operatoes offering the US style charging (e.g. Orange in the UK). But they are unsual and uncommon.
Re:Retarded anyway (Score:2)
Considering the number of ways in which US telecoms are incompatable with the rest of the planet; 56k vs 64k bearer channels; 1.5M vs 2M primary rate; use of 011 vs 00; US ISDN; etc it's kind of surprising that the US is even a member at all.
Re:We are not "happy" with our inferior service (Score:2)
Privatization has its benefits (private companies are usually a lot more efficient than a government department) but also has it's downsides (more concern for the owners than the consumers).
Why do governments look at the USA and say they want to be just like them?
(Oh - btw, I like being in the US. My only real bitch is the utility companies)
Re:Mobile Phone pricing in the US is just ridiculo (Score:2)
The telcos here just haven't noticed what happened in every other country in the world when they removed the charge for incoming calls on mobile phones - usage grew to about 75% of the population. I enjoyed the phone because it allowed people to keep in touch with me, and allowed me to keep in touch with my wife for relatively little expense.
The companys here seem to be obsessed with "minutes" rather than getting the base rate down. I don't want "minutes" - I just want a phone.
As for land lines, it's mainly the FCC charges I'm talking about. I'm used to not having lots of extra taxes on communication - rather paying about US$12/month for a full service line (caller id, call waiting, diversion etc.) Again, here you seem to be paying for "extra" services like call waiting that actually cost the telco nothing.
As a point of note - you don't pay per minute calls in Australia either. You pay about $0.12 per local call. The local calling areas are significantly larger as well - usually encompassing the entire capital cities, rather than just a few exchanges. As an example, under the Australian system you'd expect any call between any two numbers in New York City to not be time charged.
Comparing the communications charges I'm paying now compared to what I was, I can assure you the US system is very much NOT a better deal. Given the economies of scale that should be possible here it's very surprising how much more people seem to be happy to pay for a substandard service.
The amusing thing about it all is that people in Australia are screaming at the telcos claiming they are being ripped off everywhere - often claiming that they are worse off than people in other countries (like the US). As soon as you actually look at the charges you realize just how wrong they really are.
On the bright side - international calls are much cheaper here if you can find the right carrier. I'm quite amused that it's cheaper for me to call Australia (9c/min) than it is to call across town (10c/min)!!
Re:SMS explained (Score:2)
SMS Carriers and why. (Score:2)
Most carriers around the world restrict where you can send SMS for one of two reasons.
Cost - Carriers make more profit from local SMS, as it costs them nothing. Where international SMS is dependent on the price negotiated with the destination carrier. Since SMS pricing is generally flat rate, regardless of the destination, it's in the carrier best interest to only promote local SMS.
SPAM - This is the biggest problem and why inter-carrier SMS is only supported by a handful of carriers.
In the early days many carriers supported the inter-carrier SMS, but with the falling prices of bulk SMS in the European countries, SPAMers spoiled it for the masses. Even the great South African carrier, MTN(http://www.mtnsms.com/), had it's agreements revoked.
Carriers are reluctant to open the floodgates to foreign SMS. If your carrier wants to allow you to send SMS to carrier X, then carrier X would expect that their customers be able to do the reverse. Carrier's hate not having complete control over their network and thus prefer not to support inter-carrier SMS where their jurisdiction over SPAMers is in doubt.
Here in Australia, we've only had agreements in place for local SMS for about 9 months, allowing any Aussie GSM user SMS access to the 4 major networks. This is great, but the carriers only support the boring standard text messaging. Many of the powerful SMS features (Class 2 and 3 messaging) are blocked at the gateways.
On top of this the carriers have agreed not sell any bulk SMS products with inter-carrier SMS facilities. This is good in the sense that it will prevent SPAMers, but on the down side, it puts bulk SMS out of reach to the small developer. (Where I fit in)
In short, you have very little hope in convincing your carrier to allow inter-carrier SMS by yourself. Your best bet is to rally up other subscribers and put pressure on them that way. This is how it was achieved in Australia. (See your US eqivalent of www.tio.com.au for help).
Mac.
SMS is good stuff (Score:2)
at NZ$0.20 a message (sender pays), it can get expensive with heavy use, but is not cost-prohibitive with moderate use.
Jerk... (Score:2)
Yes, of course. If someone points out that the US is behind the rest of the world in some respect, it must be because he's an idiot who can't comprehend the very simple and superior US system.
BTW, I live in Califoria and have flat-rate calling, genius.
Ha! A contradiction! (Score:2)
Yes, you pay more to call a mobile phone. They have special area codes, so you know what you'll pay.
Of course it's the person who makes the calls who should be paying for it. That is how every other market works. Imagine if you would have to pay airline tickets when people came visiting you...
Sorry to say that... (Score:2)
Here in Austria (Yes that's the little spot in Europe...) we use SMS for our daily needs... There are 7 million inhabitants in my little country and the number of SMS sent per day exceeds 8 millions, we basically use them for everything, like getting Slashdot news, as a beeper to wake up, for better marks at school (cheating via SMS is GREAT
So my 0.02 of opinion I want to share is that everybody should literally *BEAT* their cellphone providers to enable sending and receiving SMS to and from every network... It's really cool, SMS are like ICQ for your mobile
Re:Wired News has an article... (Score:2)
That said.. Yes, landlines are horribly expensive in europe, but what do you really need them for aside faxes and internet? If landlines are charged per min and cell phones are charged per min at a comparable rate which one would you choose? I'd rather have the cellphone anyway so this just simplifies the decision..
As for the pricing: once you call outside your local calling area in US all bets are off. Local calling areas don't cover full areacodes and prices depend on your provider. Most of the time in europe prices for calls within the areacode are same. Simplifies things a little. Also there is a different price for calls during business hours and calls outside business hours.. And per minute charges generally make longer calls more expensive than short ones.. Not too complicated.. definetly easier then trying to make any sense of US cell phone calling plans..
In US if you get a cellphone plan you first decide your local calling area(small=cheap, large=expensive) and how many minutes(little=cheap, alot=expensive) you want to have per month. After this you find out that although you have 1000min/month you can only talk on an avrg. 10min/day between 9-7 or otherwise you'll be charged a lot extra(minutes when you are awake=expensive, minutes when you sleep=cheap, reflects on the quota). Rest of the minutes are usable in the middle of the night or during the weekend. You've got anytime minutes, night/weekend-minutes, daytime minutes, promotonial minutes, local minutes, long-distance minutes, etc.. Who the hell is going to keep track of all of them.. Why don't you just scrap the freaking quotas and charge per min based on areacodes..
Sure you might alse get free nationwide long-distance(for extra money) but once you exit your local calling area you get a horrific roaming charge(to be fair.. europe's roaming charges are bad too when you hop countries). Receiving calls while outside your local calling area is also expensive. In Europe "local" calling area(for cellphones) is generally the country you live in and not the couple of surrounding counties around you. If you want something like the whole east coast as your local calling area prepare to give out triple digits/month..
Since you might already have to pay extra for calling within your areacode(calls outside local calling area) why not impose the same thing for cell phones and making receiving calls free like almost all of rest of the world does. Receiving calls on a cellphone is most of the time for the convenience of people calling you so make them pay for it.
Btw. My cellphone back home costs about 4-5$/month to have active so even though I've been to US for almost 4 years I still have my mobile abroad working. Whenever I go home I can just borrow a phone from someone, insert my sim-card and be off. Any calls I make are charged per min(10-15c) and receiving is free.. Most of time I use the latter..
Re:Wired News has an article... (Score:2)
All of europe to my knowledge pays normally per minute in the originating end and per message for sms(it takes like what, umm.. 0.5sec to send the sms?). I think that in Russia you have to pay for receiving calls too but most of the countries(unless you're roaming) offer free receiving.
In my opinion US system is screwed up. You get a ton of minutes you can only use at certain times of day or certain days and have to pay for all of them even if you end up using none.. Paying for what you actually use and getting free receiving makes much more sense(unless you really use all of your monthly quota up every month).
Re:US has problems (Score:2)
GSM vs. TDMA vs. CDMA (Score:2)
I worked for an RF consulting company that helped launch Sprint's PCS system. Part of the software I wrote interpreted low-level messaging (this is basically the protocol that the phone uses to speak to the base station). The protocol is identical to GSM. In fact, all my code was based on GSM documentation and standards, simply modified for frequency.
Not that this is particularly important to the question at hand.
CDMA provides better quality of service and a higher traffic load at the same bandwidth, as TDMA or GSM/PCS. While the protocols are completely different, it has little to do with SMS. SMS has little to do with the phone protocol, at least from my knowledge. It would seem to have more to do with the switch at the provider. Therefore, I can't see why protocol (i.e. TDMA, CDMA, GSM, PCS) would have anything to do with it.
I would hazard a guess that the reason for the lack of adoption in the States has more to do with a lack of demand than anything else. I have SMS MT (mobile terminated) service, but I rarely use it, and if I had SMS MO (mobile originated), I doubt I'd use it much either.
Everyone I know, in the U.S. (and I'm speaking of friends, family, etc), have e-mail (let me clarify that I realize not every U.S. citizen has e-mail, I'm just speaking of people I know personally), and because e-mail is so prevalent and available here, I think people have little use for SMS. I have e-mail at home, and I have it at work. What do I need SMS for??? Everyone I communicate with regularly has e-mail day and night.
Even internationally, most of my friends in other countries, are more likely to have e-mail than a cell phone, let alone a cell phone with SMS. I think it's just a general difference between North America and the rest of the world.
Re:GSM vs. TDMA vs. CDMA (Score:2)
This system was definitely GSM based, though. My company was intimately involved in the original buildout. We designed it. I and others, wrote the software that the engineers used to design the system. Now, if Sprint is still using the term PCS or someone else is using it, for some other type of system, that's fine. The originaly PCS system from Sprint, was a GSM based system at 1920 mHz.
Now, I can't prove everything above, but here's a GSM PCS 1920 phone by Nortel [nortelnetworks.com] but maybe there was never a PCS 1920 GSM based network for this phone. Maybe it was just something they made as a joke. You be the judge.
Re:GSM vs. TDMA vs. CDMA (Score:2)
That sounds facetious, of course, but it's true. I've had one situation where things were too noisy for me to use my cell phone. In that situation, I simply said "hold on one second," and walked outside to make the call.
I'm not saying it doesn't have a use. I just don't think there's enough demand for it in the States. That's the only point I was trying to make.
Re:GSM vs. TDMA vs. CDMA (Score:2)
Inertia (Score:2)
In North America, Most people who have cell phones also have email. As a result, it's generally been easier to get messages off of the web. That's been "good enough" for most customers, so there hasn't been much of a push to get SMS running in competition to the already(baarely) working setup.
In Europe and (more so) developing countries, fewer people had email and SMS was built into the phones -- Guess which came first.
It should also be noted that the popularity of SMS came as a big surprise to the cell companies. They originally marketed it as a cheap add-on to cell service, but then found that income from SMS started to rival voice. This is probably why it is so well developed out there. This leads to the marketing barrier -- Convincing the marketing types at the various companies to support something that's supposed to save the customers money (i.e. cut their profits) is not an easy sell. When GSM came out, there wasn't much of a voice market out there, so there wasn't a voice market to 'lose'. This made sms a no-loss propsition... an added feature to get people 'in' to the market. In North America, on the other hand, (analog) voice was already entrenched. In this domain, text messaging feels more like competition to the already entrenched voice market.
So here in North America, the pricing scheme never really favored text messaging, and it's been much more of a hack, so it hasn't caught on.Having half a dozen incompatible protocols/providers as opposed to one or two doesn't help much, either.
--
Traveling with Cingular Wireless GSM phone (Score:2)
The problem with Cingular is their support. It sucks! They have only 800 number, which could not
be called directly from outside US. They have support email address, but I never received responce to messages sent there. Finally I managed
to call their 800 number via calling card, just to hear message that I am calling from number
outside of their service zone, and they could not help me. Of course, recommeneded way to call customer support (*666 from cell phone) does not work in europe.
Taking in account that their roaming charges
outside US are $2.50/minute I just bought in France pre-paid GSM card and using while I am here.
Also, to be able to use their service outside US you need to call them and ask to activate "international roaming".
Do not forget that most of US GSM phones are using
different frequency than one in use in Europe and will not work there. You need dual or tripple band phone.
suncom (Score:2)
Re:GSM (Score:2)
Fuck SMS (Score:2)
Re:Retarded anyway (Score:2)
Alas, the developers of GSM chose almost the worst frequency they could have, and then chose to blame the US for the incompatibility. Hrmph.
Perhaps if the American government and the major American telcos had actually consulted with and helped create the global standard way back in the late 80's rather than adopting the attitude that
- nothing created in cooperation by a committee could possibly work well technically or be marketable, and
- a home-grown solution over which they have total control must be better, and
- allowing multiple standards to compete would be better because eventually the strongest system would win anyway, due to free-market forces
then your wish might have come true and GSM might truly be the global standard.This is somewhat off-topic, but the comparison between the US mobile telephony market and the market in the rest of the world (and particularly Europe) is one of my favourite examples of why a free market is not always advantageous - the imposition of the GSM standard upon the fledgling European mobile phone companies has been a license for them to print money, at the same time as achieving massive customer satisfaction, whilst the freer, no-government-imposed-standard US market has floundered.
RECEIVE money by receiveing mobile calls! (Score:2)
In Sweden there are several operators that give the receive a few cents per minute when they receive a mobile call!
This is very popular, especially with teenagers. And it certainly helps generating more traffic (and profit) for the mobile operators.
phone email (Score:2)
The email address of my phone is 214xxxxxxx@mobile.att.net where the x's are my phone number. Sprint (I believe) is similar - so instead of SMSing 214xxxxxxx just email the associated phone address (which, I think, makes AT&T SMS me your message).
wishus
---
GSM state in Europe (Score:2)
I live in Czech Republic, which, as a post-communist country, is not exactly the most developed in Europe. Still - we have 70% population mobile phone penetration, WAP support everywhere, GPRS (2.5G) available for a year now.
Speaking of SMS - I am able to send and recieve SMS throughout whole Europe, I am also able to send SMS-to-email (for cca. 2 cents) and email-to-SMS (for free) - again, throughout whole Europe.
Same in Egypt (Score:2)
FWIW, the same is true in Egypt -- if your mobile provider is Mobinil, you cannot send SMS messages to Click subscribers, and vice versa.
-
Re:Retarded anyway (Score:2)
Mobile services in US are quite retarded anyway - different standards, even GSM standard is different from European; different networks incompatible, no decent mobile phones (Nokia 62xx series that is)...
Perhaps if Europeans who developed GSM had not chosen a frequency which was at the time, and will be for a good while longer, in use in the US by the US Military, and instead chosen a frequency with the input of the FCC, which all countries had free, we could enjoy GSM at the same frequency as they are in Europe. Alas, the developers of GSM chose almost the worst frequency they could have, and then chose to blame the US for the incompatibility. Hrmph.
-Nathan
Care about freedom?
Why is SMS best for really instant messages (Score:2)
If you are sitting in a club and wondering where the friend you came out with has gone off to you send them a short text message "where r u?" to their phone. Because their phone not only beeps but also vibrates when they receive a message they look at their phone and respond with "busy flirting" you know not to bother trying to find them.
You are sitting in a pub with a few friends and remember you were going to invite your best mate James along to join you. He wanted to know when you got to the pub as he lives close by. Do you:
a) Leave your drink on the table with your friends and go to James' house to get him. Note that you could come back to find that your drink was drunk (some mates those are) or spiked (I only had the one officer). Note that you also loose valuable drinking time here.
b) Phone James from your mobile and attempt to have a conversation with him even though you have been drinking for a while and you start on one of your hour long drunken rambles about how wonderful/depressing the world is.
c) Send James a quick text message to get him down here quick.
Most people in the UK with a phone (and that is quite a lot of people) would now choose C.
You met some gorgeous looking girl/guy last night and want to know if they want to come out for lunch today. You haven't got the guts to actually phone them because you didn't really think they were that interested in you but you don't want to give up that easily. You send them a text message "Would you like to come out for a drink? - dunos" and wait for a reply. SMS is also used a lot for flirting and you can sit for ages sending messaged back and fourth.
You want to ask a lot of your friends out to lunch. You could phone them all but this could mean between 5 and 10 minutes to each person, which could use a lot of your time. Instead you send a "group message" to all your friends from your phone. Everyone gets the message and they all come to lunch and you only spent a minute or two writing the message.
SMS messaging can be seen as a rather "sad" way to communicate and is amazingly annoying when you are sitting on a train and everyone's mobiles are bleeping all the time. However it is also very useful and until you actually use it you do not realise how useful it really is. It is also very easy because if you have someone's phone number in your address book you can send them a message. You don't need to worry about what carrier they are with or how to convert their number into an email address or anything like that.
US has problems (Score:2)
Hell, in Europe every country I know of have agreed that GSM should be standard a long time ago (now there's 3d and 4th generation networks developing, I know that).
All users of GSM phones in Europe can send SMS messages to / from each other, regardless of operator and country. Most telco networks have deals in all other european countries, so if I (a Norwegian) decide to go to Sweden, or the Netherlands, roaming is no problem. When I got to the netherlands, I just selected KPN as the provider and it was all good, I could call everywhere I wanted.
The only problems are with those who use pre-paid subscriptions, in Norway at least they can't use the phone abroad.
The US is really lagging behind in cellphone network technology. But I also understand it's going to cost a lot of money to upgrade the network since you have quite a big country and a lot of different operators
Self-pimpage (Score:2)
Re:US has problems (Score:2)
Interopability Coming? (Score:2)
Re:Wired News has an article... (Score:2)
Boy, talk about hypocritical.... (I'm assuming that you live in Europe) I agree that with regards to interoperability, the US cell phone system is totally screwed up. It's stupid that every vendor has to mount their own towers, and that my AT&T approved device doesn't work on Sprint or MCI. But I'm living here in Germany for a while, and every landline phone call I make costs me, even if I call my next door neighbor. Furthermore, you need a chart to know what rate you'll pay because it differs based on locality, number of minutes called, day of the week, and time of day. Honestly, how can you complain about per-minute charges for airtime in the United States and put up with per-minute charges for landline usage in Europe? Here's a few things that maybe some people aren't aware of:
Having said all of this, I really wish the US would use the same technology and standards as Europe and Asia. It would make interoperability at home better, and it would potentially allow us to use our cell phones when traveling abroad without having to purchase very expensive models that can switch over.
GreyPoopon
--
Re:Wired News has an article... (Score:2)
U.S is entering the wireless world with a disadvantage. I always thought that paying for airtime was a ridicolous idea.
The U.S. telco giants all aim at achieving world dominance and monopoly. Those very goals is the reason that they will achieve neither, and that they will be midgets standing in the way of innovation.
Existing email providers on cell phones (Score:2)
Re:GSM in the US (Score:3)
Oh, horse puckey! There are something like 385 million Europeans in Western Europe alone, all sectioned off into fiercely competing bureaucracies. The fact that even Europe can manage a unified mobile voice platform complete with transparent roaming, global text messaging, and standard frequencies is a testament to the power of government sponsored infrastructure building. The US is so far behind because private industry will always build proprietary systems where it can.
I am by no means a communist (or even socialist) but empirical evidence proves that private industry will not build open, interoperable standards and systems! It's just not in its interest to do so.
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "I drank what?"
Re:GSM in the US (Score:3)
Both Australia and South Africa are large and sparsely populated outside of cities yet they can manage it.
Re:US has problems (Score:3)
Indeed.
In the last five years I've visited Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Malaysia, Japan, and Silicon Valley, Callifornia. Guess the one place my mobile phone didn't just work?
And when I say 'just work', I mean people dialling my ordinary number (in Scotland) got through to me, my SMS messages got through, I was able to call everyone...
The United States is about seven years behind the rest of the world on phone networks. You were seven years behind us switching from analogue to digital, so you aren't catching up at any noticable rate.
Re:Jerk... (Score:3)
This guy actually lives in the US, and has researched the phone market. He also has extensive first hand experience of the market in an other country. But instead of considering that his comparision might be valid and that he might have a point, you just assume that he must be confused about the facts. As he pointed out in his response, even your examples of that it can be cheap here too, are in fact quite expensive in an international comparision.
I felt better after posting, so something was achieved.
Yeah, we have 3 tier system here in CA. It's a 12 miles radius, not 10. Having 4 different phone companies to deal does not seem simple to any non americans.
Re:Wired News has an article... (Score:3)
And here we have the cultural differences popping up. For you cell phone is your convienience whereas for where i come from it is the convienience of people trying to reach you. Thus, they are willing to pay a little extra for it.. Most of the people I know in US have a cell phone so that they can use it for calling, not so that people can reach them and thus it ends up being turned off quite often.. vey irritating when you need to talk to someone.
Like I said, if you really use up your minutes on a regular basis it is worth it but I still haven't found a plan comparable to europe. Some providers give you 1000 minutes/month and then you can use 200 of these during the business hours. It comes down to something like 10min/day between 9-5 and extra minutes are charged heavily. Not my kind of plan.
Some plans do have free local calling but charge accordingly. Some have free local calling for an introductory period but after it runs out you're screwed. There are also plans that offer free calling within their network but then when you want to call someone outside the network you're paying big bucks.. Price of the plan also depends on your home calling area which is ridiculously small for the cheaper ones.. Get out of the county and you might be roaming. I'd much prefer a unified paying plan(use a minute, pay for a minute) but I suppose it comes down to personal preference and cultural differences.. US is also quite a bit larger than any european countries so comparisons are difficult..
It's a technical issue (Score:3)
However, my sister now has a cell phone provider from Moscow, and while my dad (a D2 customer) can send her an SMS, I (a E1 customer) cannot. Turns out that D2 gateways to my sister's provider and E1 does not. :(
Re:Mobile Phone pricing in the US is just ridiculo (Score:3)
In Australia I was paying about US$5 per month for a mobile phone, not paying to receive calls and paying about US$0.25/min for outgoing calls. Given that I don't use the phone that much I was more than happy with that price. I could go anywhere in Australia with that phone and have coverage - all for that one price. I took that phone to Italy and STILL had coverage without even talking to a company in Italy.
You can do that here, just buy a pre-paid phone, and occasional pre-paid cards. I believe you can have a phone on AT&T's network for as little as $24.95 every three months. I believe that's for the 30 minute cards. I will grant you that we can't roam to Europe, which kind of sucks, but I'd wager that most people in the US with cellphones don't ever leave the US anyway, it's not like Europe, where most of the countries are larger than our average-sized states.If you find land-line billing complex, you must have trouble grasping flat rate pricing (unless you're in California, Chicago, NYC, or one of the other areas without flat-rate calling) It's very simple. If you call someone within your free calling area, it costs you no more, if you call past that, but within your state, it will cost whatever your "in-state" long distance carrier charges you, as per your agreement with them. If you call out of state, it will cost you whatever price you have negotiated with your "in country" long distance carrier. If for whatever reason, you'd prefer to use an alternative carrier to your normal one, use a 101-xxxx code and dial up the carrier you like. Not too hard.
Where I live, the price of my land line is based on the number of subscriber lines that are within my local calling area. In Arkansas, there are three ranges of numbers. My area was recently re-classified by the PUC as being in the highest group. I still pay only $17/mo for the line (not counting tax and FCC fees, which bring it to $21/mo)
If you have questions about your telephone bill, you might try calling your telco's customer service number. I'm sure they would be happy to explain the charges you are paying (with the exception of the FCC fees, which the tier 1 support folks have problems grasping).
The point of this whole thing is simply to point out that we are not being screwed, as we don't pay per minute to call our ISP, or anyone else in the same city (and usually several neighboring ones as well). For those of us who use our phones (both mobile and land line) the US system is a much better deal. BTW, if you want a cellphone for emergency use only, just buy some old analog phone. Federal law mandates that all wireless carriers allow 911 access, for no charge, to all phones capable of operating with that carrier's signal. If, however, you want to talk, you do have to pay, although there may be some CPP plans in larger cities of the US of which I'm not aware.
-Nathan
Care about freedom?
Re:Wired News has an article... (Score:3)
In my opinion US system is screwed up. You get a ton of minutes you can only use at certain times of day or certain days and have to pay for all of them even if you end up using none.. Paying for what you actually use and getting free receiving makes much more sense(unless you really use all of your monthly quota up every month).
Apparently, you don't grok the advantages of not having to pay for local land-line calls. In certain cities or states, there are, but in most of the US, it's a flat rate for anywhere within a fairly wide (usually) calling area, and only if you place a long-distance call do you pay per minute. Due to this, along with the lack of mobile phones being in their own area codes, makes it nearly impossible to come up with a plan to implement calling party pays.
Even if it could be implemented, I would prefer the current system. I don't believe that others who are trying to reach my should have to pay for my own convienence. I pay for 550 minutes/mo with no roaming fees or long distance fees anywhere in the US, on any network with which my carrier has a roaming agreement (most of the carriers serving more than a single county, and at least one anywhere there is mobile phone service). I also get up to 200 text messages/e-mails for free each month. I am almost always within 25 minutes of my alotted 550, so the deal works well for me. I get the convienence of my phone, and having people willing to call that number to reach me, since they don't have to pay.
Many people argue that the lack of CPP in the US is causing less cellphone usage, but given how everyone I know who wants one has one, I don't really see how that can hold true. There is now even a carrier that gives you unlimited minutes for $29.95/mo, within your home area. Also, in the US, carriers are free to implement some sort of a CPP service, but there is apparently little demand for it.
People who choose to purchase blocks of Night & Weekend minutes usually do so because the rate is extremely cheap (thanks to the much lower usage during those hours), and that is when they do most of their calling. For people who use their phones during the day, they can also get a phone for $0.10/min or less for a "home area only" plan. It's really up to the individual. It is also possible, with most carriers to have either a small number of minutes or no minutes at all for a small monthly fee, but they charge you $0.40/min or so to use your phone.
-Nathan
Care about freedom?
Re:Retarded anyway (Score:3)
The point is that mobile numbers have a special area prefix, and then they are nationwide. The caller pays extra, but knows this because of the prefix. The receiver doesn't pay unless they are out of the country.
End result is that with the US-type system, private users like to keep their numbers quiet because of the cost issue whilst with the Europeanm type system, users often give out their mobile numbers in preference to their home numbers because of the ease of reachability.
This is an economics issue not a straight technical issue.
Re:GSM (Score:4)
currently using Voicestream, a couple of my
friends are with someone else, although I'm not
sure whom. With GTE, Aerial, AT&T, Alltel and others playing the musical chairs game with networks and names it gets rather hard to keep up.
In any event, both I and all my friends (with Voicestream and with an alternate carrier) were able to send and receive SMS messages to Finland (Radiolinja), and to each other. I think the situation isn't quite as bad as it seems.
Now if the US would just finally unbundle phones from ludicrously long-term contracts and let people actually pick the phones they want...
Similar in the UK several years ago (Score:4)
Mobile Phone pricing in the US is just ridiculous (Score:5)
In Australia I was paying about US$5 per month for a mobile phone, not paying to receive calls and paying about US$0.25/min for outgoing calls. Given that I don't use the phone that much I was more than happy with that price. I could go anywhere in Australia with that phone and have coverage - all for that one price. I took that phone to Italy and STILL had coverage without even talking to a company in Italy.
Coming to the US, I find it impossible to get a phone for less than SIX TIMES that price, and find that I can't go to Europe or anywhere and expect to get coverage without getting a totally new phone. I even find that I have to pay for incoming calls. No way in hell I'm going to get a phone here from any company. I don't care - the telcos here just don't have any idea what is possible.
The "free market" has screwed people in the US so badly that they don't even notice it any more. Even the cost of land lines is higher, lower quality and so hideously complex in the billing that it is absolutely impossible to figure out who you are paying for what.
To any American who thinks they have it good, think again. The telcos are screwing you for at least 2 to 3 times what you would pay for a BETTER service in any other country.
Wired News has an article... (Score:5)
Re:It's a technical issue (Score:5)
To be precise, networks make use of something called as SMS center as the gateway. This element in the network acts as a router for all messages within the network. So, to send a message, a phone will first send it to the SMS center. The SMS center will then forward it to the recipient. Even if you are sending SMS within the network, it will still be routed via the SMS center.
The SMS center is addressed as just as any other cellphone in your network. You can find the number in the network settings of your phone.
Now, the interesting part. For GSM, the interface between the SMS center and the rest of the network is not standardized (GSM standards say that its 'out of scope'). That means your operators can choose whatever they want as the interface between the mobile network and the SMS center. Typically, this interface will be TCP/IP, or IPX or X.25 or SS7. Usually, the vendors who provide the equipment to the operators suggest an interface and the operators go along.
For U.S. based standards, there is a similar concept. Again, the interface can be TCP/IP or IPX or X.25 or SS7.
However, the standards for both GSM and the CDMA/TDMA/AMPS don't talk anything about how the SMS center should talk to the rest of the world. This means talking to some other SMS center of any other operator, or some server on the Internet is not 'in scope'. Since the standards don't talk of any such connectivity, the vendors (Big Guys like Nokia, Ericsson, Lucent, Nortel, Alcatel, Seimens, Motorola etc. ) don't have to build SMS centers with external interfaces to be standards compliant. For GSM, the internal interface to the network is a must but external is 'out of scope'. Typically, there is an extra charge for giving the external interface, and so many operators don't go for the equipment. That's why, many operators don't have external connectivity and you end up sending SMS to only people in your network. In the U.S. standards, SMS is a relatively new phenomenon. Many networks haven't had to upgrade to the latest specs, and so there isn't any SMS.
Taking this issue further, a lot of the GSM operators in Europe make money by allowing people to 'roam' between networks. Therefore, it makes business sense to provide connectivity (SMS/roaming). However, in the U.S. the operators make money mainly from airtime. So, there isn't much incentive to provide roaming or interconnectivity between networks. The end result, you are stuck with either not having SMS or only able to sent it within your network. As far as the rest of the world goes, the folks with GSM have SMS as per standards with external connectivity an optional feature, and the CDMA/TDMA folks depend on the 'age' of their networks.
GSM (Score:5)
When the networks first offered SMS MO in Australia there was no carrier interoperability - you could only SMS people with the same carrier. Eventually it became more and more popular and the carriers signed interconnect agreements. Some Austrlian networks can't SMS international networks but it all depends on their interconnect and roaming agreements.
The US, with its mix of different standards and extensive Analog network is a different story. CDMA and TDMA now have SMS MO support, but I don't believe SMS MO was part of the original implementation. So there isn't extensive SMS MO support in existing handsets. Some providers like Sprint are using WAP to implement SMS MO!
There isn't enough demand to warrant SMS interconnect agreements, there's no single standard, and from a marketing point of view it's almost a reason to stick with the same network as your friends. In Australia, your phone number prefix indicates that it's both a mobile phone, and which network you subscribe to. So before there was interconnect, you could still tell if you could SMS someone based on their phone number. In the US, it's not obvious from the phone number whether your SMS will make it to its recipient, or just end up in a black hole.
Finally, US cellphone airtime pricing is just time based - there isn't usually a flagfall for originating a call. So it's not really a cost saving to SMS someone instead of calling them, as it is in other parts of the world.
Things will get more consistent as Cingular and AT&T migrate to GSM, but until there are business reasons to support SMS interconnect, the networks in the US will be slow to move.