Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / General / General Topics / May 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

For Larry... "Space scientist says texting is four times more expensive than receiving scientific data from space"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Todd Allcock - 14 May 2008 16:24 GMT
I thought you'd enjoy this article, Lar...

http://www.physorg.com/news129793047.html

> Space scientist says texting is four times more expensive than receiving
> scientific data from space"
>
> A University of Leicester space scientist has worked out that sending
> texts via mobile phones
> works out to be far more expensive than downloading data from the Hubble
> Space Telescope.
>
> Dr Nigel Bannister's calculations were used for the Channel 4 Dispatches
> programme "The
> Mobile Phone Rip-Off".
>
> He worked out the cost of obtaining a megabyte of data from Hubble - and
> compared that
> with the 5p cost of sending a text.
>
> He said: "The bottom line is texting is at least 4 times more expensive
> than transmitting data
> from Hubble, and is likely to be substantially more than that.
>
> "The maximum size for a text message is 160 characters, which takes 140
> bytes because
> there are only 7 bits per character in the text messaging system, and we
> assume the
> average price for a text message is 5p. There are 1,048,576 bytes in a
> megabyte, so
> that's 1 million/140 = 7490 text messages to transmit one megabyte. At 5p
> each, that's
> £374.49 per MB - or about 4.4 times more expensive than the 'most
> pessimistic' estimate
> for Hubble Space Telescope transmission costs..."
Larry - 15 May 2008 03:31 GMT
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:TuDWj.58$ba4.18
@fe127.usenetserver.com:

> I thought you'd enjoy this article, Lar...
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news129793047.html

SO COOL!  Thank you!.....(c;

5p is a pittance compared to $0.20US.

It's probably cheaper to get data from Voyager 1 in the Oort Cloud, now,
than from Verizon...(c;

....as I said before, "The most expensive data on the planet."

I guess "in the Solar System" is now more accurate!
Todd Allcock - 15 May 2008 03:52 GMT
> > http://www.physorg.com/news129793047.html
>
> SO COOL!  Thank you!.....(c;
>
> 5p is a pittance compared to $0.20US.

Given the way the exchange rate is going, they'll be equivalent soon
enough, unfortunately! :-(

> It's probably cheaper to get data from Voyager 1 in the Oort Cloud, now,
> than from Verizon...(c;
>
> ....as I said before, "The most expensive data on the planet."
>
> I guess "in the Solar System" is now more accurate!

Yep- you'll need to update your rant in future posts!  ;-)
Dennis Ferguson - 15 May 2008 05:37 GMT
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:TuDWj.58$ba4.18
> @fe127.usenetserver.com:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> 5p is a pittance compared to $0.20US.

Not only that, but the 5p is only charged to the sender and the
receiver pays nothing.  The $0.20 is double-dipped from both
ends.

Dennis Ferguson
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.