Bump

Folks... Look at this link CELLUSERS is LONG.

http://www.cellular-news.com/story/35298.php

That article and every other reference to it states that it's 4 billion CELL PHONES in use, not 4 billion SUBSCRIPTIONS (as the prop requires). Since millions of cell phones are used by corporate,emergency service, government, and international agencies that have many users on a single account, not to mention "family plans" that include several phones on a single account, it's clear that the number of cell phones in use doesn't represent the number of subscriptions.

Also, from the context of the original release of the article at "http://www.3gamericas.org/English/News_Room/DisplayPressRelease.cfm?id=3452&s=ENG, it's pretty clear this figure was delivered from the long-standing prediction of 4 billion users by year's end. There's no reference to where their numbers are really derived from, and no statistics on the site that demonstrate 4 billion has been reached (and they have a lot of stats).

Unfortunately, the fact that this report is a lot of tripe and does not reflect the worldwide economic downturn, it will still probably be accepted that the prop was proven true. Then, a few weeks from now an accurate report will be released that shows we did not reach 4 billion this year.

So lame.

Like chris in the first response to your original blathering....

bump^2

How insightful, braat814. You really contributed a lot with that post...

Vulgarian,

Though your post is logical, barrt814's is probably more along the lines of what PopSci will use.

I'm going to suppose that spelling his name wrong was an accident, rather than an attempt at an insult (which is what the tone of that post lends itself to).

Scojac; that's what my later post was saying, that the "announcement" of 4 billion cell phones was probably not enough to satisfy the prop if it was looked at closely... but it's probably what Popsci will use to decide it.

(Pointlessly) there's something else fishy about the whole "4 billion cell phone users" figure. The figure is largely derived from "www.3gamericas figure on their front page, listing over 3.5 billion ACTIVATIONS of the GSM service to date. There is nothing to show that there are that many CURRENTLY ACTIVE accounts.

How many of you have switched carriers in the past few years? Each time it's a new activation. What happens if you expand those numbers worldwide? What about the third world people who can't maintain an account and let it lapse? It's still an "activation" even though the account is no longer in use.

Further, they talk about "75% penetration" in Latin America. 3 out of 4 people in Latin America owning cell phones? The highest per capita income in Latin America is probably Mexico, and I doubt that figure tops 9 grand a year. Are these people who have to worry about food in 90% of their populace shelling out monthly subscription charges and buying cell phones for Mom, Dad, and 4 of their 6 kids?

And don't accuse me of stereotyping. Have you ever been outside a major city in Latin America? You'll know this isn't so.

I wouldn't be surprised if down the line we find out these numbers are seriously inflated, and that there aren't more than 2.5-3 billion actual cell phone accounts in use.

Not that this will change the way the prop goes... it's just an observation on the questionable nature of these statistics.

Ok, I found a link for subscriptions.

http://www.cellular-news.com/story/35298.php

ok, I just realized that was the link being discussed.

But in the first paragraph it states: "...historic milestone was achieved for the wireless industry in December 2008 with 4 billion connections to mobile devices worldwide."

Let's just make this clear "4 billion connections" not phones

Nope. 4 billion "connections to devices". It does not say "subscriptions" or "subscribers" or "accounts".... and if you check otu the originating organization, you'll see on their home page the number of "activations" they are tracking.

This is a trade group that's playing awfully fast and loose with the facts.

Did you by any chance look at the title of the article?

Vulgariette, relax, let go of the rearly inserted stick, and buy cellusers. You will feel better in the morning.

OOps, sorry vulgariette... I guess it halted. Lets see how it pays out.

Well, bratface, I already owned it because I know this sort of quasi-statistical-pud-pumping is the way trade groups do things, and that these fictionalized stats tend to get repeated over and over as if they were gospel.

I didn't see any point in losing out on a payoff, even though there's very little to make me believe the numbers are grounded in any fact.

All I'm saying is that this "announcement" is probably enough to warrant a payoff, even though it's probably BS.
(But then again, you probably didn't read anything I wrote in the previous posts, so you really don't know WHAT I wrote.)

traderboi--the title is pointless. If the underlying numbers are BS, then the title means nothing as well.

Comment noted, vulvarian. And yes, you are right about trade groups.

Trade groups are like laywers and oil companies, not to be trusted with a bread crumb.

Wow Vulgarian, You don't even have the rocks to put your money where your mouth is.

In case you didn't notice, traderboi, my mouth (or more accurately, my fingers) put down these words in a post above;

"Unfortunately, the fact that this report is a lot of tripe and does not reflect the worldwide economic downturn, it will still probably be accepted that the prop was proven true." (I know, that's a crappy sentence, but it says what I wanted to say).

I put my money where my mouth is... I put it down in the direction I thought the prop would go, in the direction I SAID I thought the prop would go.

If that's a lack of "rocks", then waveriding is the most "rockless" way of playing this game. It involves changing your position every time a prop moves, without any regard for facts or any belief in (and often knowledge of)the props.