The Death of the "Cell Phone"

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

We already have one

"Mobile Phone" or just "Mobile"

Re:We already have one

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

Re:We already have one

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

Re:We already have one

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

Re:We already have one

+1 freakin' hysterical

Re:We already have one

or "Handy" if you are German

Re:A Better Name

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

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

Re:We already have one

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

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

Re:We already have one

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

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

Re:We already have one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I nominate:

Leash

Tactics for not being interrupted

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

I have a few tactics for not being interrupted;

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

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

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

I prefer the choices that a mobile gives me.

SOLUTION

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

really?

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

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

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

Re:really?

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

source please

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

Re:source please

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

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

How vacuous

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

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

A simple answer

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

Overthinking FTL.

the UK

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

This is one of those cases

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

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

Who cares what it's called?

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

As a linguist...

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

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

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

So:

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

HAL.

Why?

We still "dial", don't we?

My experiences at Cellular Toys.

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

New Marketing Name Wanted!

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

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

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

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

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

language is a museum

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

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

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

Inaccurate definition

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

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

Bullshit

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

Bullshit.

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

Double bullshit.

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

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

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