Why the dislike of cellphones on the boards?

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@MacTech

I don’t get this “one upsmanship” with cell phones, it’s nothing more than a “Mine’s Bigger than Yours” contest, what’s the big deal, it’s just a bloody phone, an annoying, privacy-destroying, noisy, irritating phone

Bingo! I like my mp3 player much better. I use it to tune out the noisy cellphone users on the bus.

I have a cellphone. I let it die at the bottom of my purse some weeks ago and then never renewed my minutes. I don’t really miss it. I answer phones for a paycheck.

I only check my Skype messages maybe once a week. If you need me, shoot me an email (if I let you have my address). If it’s an emergency, call my husband.

@MacTech

I HATE phones…

Me too. I’m an equal opportunity phone hater. I hate home phones, office phones, cellphones, and payphones.

[Niemand_Noone]

I don’t have one myself – basically, the inconvenience factor of not having one is still lower than the factor of having a few extra $$ in my pocketses at the end of the month. Also, seems here in Canada – according to a report on (I think) CTV News – cell phone costs are higher than in the US, UK, Japan, Aus, etc. The last pay-as-you-go phone I had used up time by the minute: basically, I got about a dozen or so “Honey, I’m going to be late, just keep the KD on low for me…” before I had to renew. It also didn’t fold up, so had the annoying habit of turning itself on in my pocket/backpack after I’d shut it off. The one I had previously, I kept getting calls from some unknown yutz who kept leaving long stretches of silence on my voicemail, which apparently could run up my bill (needless to say, I will not deal with that company any more). Meh.

Now, if they were a bit cheaper, I’d have one. There are times I’m trying to meet my wife after work, and one or the other is caught in a subway delay or somesuch. Or I may be coming home very late from work (say midnight) and might decide I’m not walking, I’m going to call a cab. Or any other unforeseen circumstance.

There was one time, though, that I had a cell in my pocket at a social gathering, with the ringer on full (just in case I didn’t catch a vibe), and planned to take the call there and then if it came in, and that was when I was on call for my base a few days after 9/11, when all the American international flights got diverted to Canada and we had thousands of temporary “refugees” to deal with. I’m sure that, under the circumstances, I would have been forgiven had the call come in.

Now, to me, overall, the sentiment of the anti-cell people is not against the phones per se: they are just tools; their problem is with the tools who use them.

I’m going to date myself here. The situation is not much different from when Walkmans first came out: people oblivious to their surroundings, singing along to the music only they can hear, shouting at you when they talk because they can’t hear their own voices. Every new technology brings out the latent a$$hole in some people, and cranks up the not-so-latent one in others:

• Cell phones. Been over that.
• Sound systems in cars two blocks away that are cranked up to three-digit decibel levels that has the bass pounding so hard you can see your shirt fluff on every downbeat.
• The latest weed-whacker/riding mower/leaf blower/wood chipper/squirrel castrator that at least one yum-yum in every neighbourhood seems to have and absolutely MUST start up at exactly (or shortly-before-oh-I’m-sorry-officer-my-watch-is-fast) the minute the bylaw allows, usually stupid-o’clock in the morning on a Saturday or Sunday
• Car drivers who drive like they own the road. Especially those in armour-plated SUVs that hike them high out of the standard accident kill-zone while they do 35+ km/h over the limit while they try to text someone while simultaneously talking on their Bluetooth and drinking their Venti Tazo Green Tea Frappuccino Creme w/Melon Syrup and changing the tune on the MP3 while trying to find the third-quarter forecast PowerPoint presentation on their WiFi laptop and steering with their knees.
• Skateboards.

The numpties who are in these cases are annoying seem to me to be in the minority. However, as has been mentioned, we DO notice those who are rude, and make associations with their chosen Instrument of Discourteousness.

“Cell phones don’t bug people; people bug people!” Cheston Harlton, National Ringtone Association

• Niemand

PS. My first post! Yay for me!

[Dinsdale]

@Martini Enfield

Didn’t most countries do this? Every cellphone number in Australia begins with 04, and in NZ it’s 02.

Can’t express how happy these posts from around the world make me for the prospects of America’s supposed “service economy” keeping us astride the world (a location many Americans consider to be their birthright!)

What the heck is going on here that we can’t even get a simple thing like this correct? Please, someone let me know that there is SOME backwater 3d world country out there somewhere that fucked up phone area codes the way the US did?

(A small matter indeed, but in my mind possibly significant in illustrating how little our service economy has to do with actually providing any service to consumers.)

[Bambi_Hassenpfeffer]

@Dinsdale

What the heck is going on here that we can’t even get a simple thing like this correct? Please, someone let me know that there is SOME backwater 3d world country out there somewhere that fucked up phone area codes the way the US did?

The FCC is responsible for the decision to prohibit assignation of an area code for cell numbers only. They felt that it was anti-competitive. In any case, many (many) area codes had split or overlaid before cell service was common, so all it did was speed up the inevitable. We can’t live on in the same area codes forever, you know.

IMO we should have just overlaid new “area codes” on top of others and mandated ten-digit dialing nationwide. It’s the only solution that has long-term viability. Since we no longer use analog switching equipment, it’s not at all necessary that an “area code” be tied to any area whatsoever.

Instead, we have some people who have to dial 11 digits for a local call, others who have to dial 10, still others who have to dial 7 for some and 10 for others, and every time an area code splits everyone who lives in the new code needs to tell everybody about their new area code. Mandated overlays would just set the nation onto 10-digit dialing for everyone.

[Dinsdale]

@Bambi Hassenpfeffer

The FCC is responsible for the decision to prohibit assignation of an area code for cell numbers only. They felt that it was anti-competitive. In any case, many (many) area codes had split or overlaid before cell service was common, so all it did was speed up the inevitable. We can’t live on in the same area codes forever, you know.

I’d be interested in seeing the data to support that.

Also, splitting of area codes is IMO preferable to an overlay. And I think that is clearly a matter of opinion rather than fact, on which folks could differ (tho I’d like to hear the explanation why folks disagree with me!) When they were splitting in Chicago, I saw a lot of data discussing the impact on existing numbers. As I recall, if the busiest areas were split up intelligently, they really could derive tremendous economies from splitting.

Here in Chicago, in the 60s and 70s the whole metro area used to be 312. Over the past couple of decades, the N burbs became 847, the western burbs 630, and so on. To me, that was a very understandable and workable system. If I was going to call between my (suburban) home and my (Chicago) office, I needed to use an area code. But it I were at work calling the courts right down the street, or at home ordering a pizza, it was just the good old 7 digits.

I do not know the numbers, but ISTM that if they had simply assigned cells new area codes - even if that required some changing at early stages of cell market penetration, the fewest people would have been inconvenienced over the long run. Meanwhile, the decision that was made seems to result in the worst of both worlds, with both splitting and overlays, creating the maximum possible confusion. All - as I recall - for the primary goal of not assigning any stigma by giving cells discrete area codes.

I’d like to see some #s on the consumer benefit that has resulted from FCC’s “pro competition” decision.

IIRC, another factor was the phone companies’ desire to continue to be very sloppy in the manner in which they assigned (and reassigned) large batches of numbers within existing area codes. My guess is that the short-term ease, convenience, and profit of the providers, had far more impact into the decision than the minor yet widespread and longterm inconvenience of customers.

IMO we should have just overlaid new “area codes” on top of others and mandated ten-digit dialing nationwide. It’s the only solution that has long-term viability. Since we no longer use analog switching equipment, it’s not at all necessary that an “area code” be tied to any area whatsoever.

I’d need to see the math that shows that is the only solution with long-term viability, as opposed to splitting area codes in major markets, and assigning new area codes to mobile and other users.

Is your preference in any way affected by the fact that you store most phone numbers on your cell? Or do you wish to claim it is just as easy to remember 10 digits as 7?

[D_Odds]

@Dinsdale

I’d be interested in seeing the data to support that.

Also, splitting of area codes is IMO preferable to an overlay. And I think that is clearly a matter of opinion rather than fact, on which folks could differ (tho I’d like to hear the explanation why folks disagree with me!) When they were splitting in Chicago, I saw a lot of data discussing the impact on existing numbers. As I recall, if the busiest areas were split up intelligently, they really could derive tremendous economies from splitting.

Seinfeld did an episode about this, and like many episodes, it had some truth behind it. In Manhattan, you want a 212 area code. 212 is Manhattan. Not 917, 347, or any of the others currently floating around. Unfortunately, they were out of new, acceptable 212 numbers. No one with a 212 number was going to willingly give it up without a fight. Rather than tick-off half of their customer base by splitting, the decision was made to overlay. Good luck getting a 212 landline now.

[Bambi_Hassenpfeffer]

@Dinsdale

Here in Chicago, in the 60s and 70s the whole metro area used to be 312. Over the past couple of decades, the N burbs became 847, the western burbs 630, and so on. To me, that was a very understandable and workable system. If I was going to call between my (suburban) home and my (Chicago) office, I needed to use an area code. But it I were at work calling the courts right down the street, or at home ordering a pizza, it was just the good old 7 digits.

You’re right that it makes sense for nearby numbers to share a set of digits in common, much like in the past you could just dial the last four digits of a number if you shared its prefix. But that didn’t last for the same reason (IMO) that seven digit dialing won’t now. We need more numbers than that.

I’d need to see the math that shows that is the only solution with long-term viability, as opposed to splitting area codes in major markets, and assigning new area codes to mobile and other users.

Splitting area codes is irritating and doesn’t actually solve anything. We went through a split here about 10 years ago and it was an enormous hassle. For home users, it wasn’t incredibly annoying, but all of the businesses had to reprint all their information on their business cards and advertisements. They had to update all their internal phonebooks for locations outside the area code. They had to reprogram their dialing systems. And when we run out of numbers in 727, they’re going to have to do that all over again, unless we just overlay a new code.

If we had gotten an overlay, all of the existing numbers would have stayed exactly the same. We would have had to do nothing at all except to remember three extra digits when dialing. And given the fact that it’s not so much remembering three extra random digits, just remembering which set of digits (727 or 813, frex), it’s not that difficult.

Is your preference in any way affected by the fact that you store most phone numbers on your cell? Or do you wish to claim it is just as easy to remember 10 digits as 7?

It is as easy for me to remember 10 digits versus 7. Especially since, as I said, you’re not remembering 3 more digits out of 10, just which of the two or three sets of three that are assigned to your area. In Atlanta, which is an area I am familiar with, the two area codes are 404 and 770. I have seen many people list their numbers a (7) 555-1212 or (4) 555-1212. They know that 4 = 404 and 7 = 770, and that’s enough.

I do store all of my phone numbers in my cell, but I also make several calls daily from work without my cell available. It’s just not that hard to remember an extra set of numbers.

[Siam_Sam]

@Dinsdale

Can’t express how happy these posts from around the world make me for the prospects of America’s supposed “service economy” keeping us astride the world (a location many Americans consider to be their birthright!)

What the heck is going on here that we can’t even get a simple thing like this correct? Please, someone let me know that there is SOME backwater 3d world country out there somewhere that fucked up phone area codes the way the US did?

Not here. MY backwater has a highly efficient telephone system, both the government-run one and the private companies.

But complaining about service is common everywhere, no matter how bad or good it may be. I still hear complaints, mainly from cellphone users regarding indifference when they try to contact their service. Another reason I’m glad not to have a cellphone!