So then you're saying that it's not a matter of actually implementing secure communications, but adjusting expectations so that whatever we have is seen as secure by the people using it.
No, I'm saying that it is possible to make a system that is, at least for most purposes, both secure and not dependent on geekly knowledge. Using the cell network as an example, while the encryption actually used and the security model is not great for most cell networks, from what I've read the Blackberry's model seems to be pretty good, and some version of the Blackberry is, AFAIK, still in use by the politician in the White House, who "couldn't live without his Blackberry" and is certainly by no means a geek or significantly knowledgeable about how to implement or maintain a secure channel. Of course, we don't know how much or what kind of work was necessary to vet and maintain the system in that case - but it's significant that governments including the government of India were at least talking about blocking all Blackberry traffic unless the company allowed them access to the keys, or put the servers inside the country.
There are also other systems that, _once set up_ for a company, for instance, seem to be pretty transparent and easy to use for the employees. I suspect that in those cases as well as the Blackberry, there is a significant effort for the support and IT people to set up and maintain such a system, but that's OK. I just don't think it's right to tell some poor slob with a bad excuse for a high school diploma to become an expert in how to maintain the security on their phones. It's worth noting that historically (back in the paper mill days) janitors needed to have the highest security clearances in government installations, for pretty obvious reasons.