I’ve had this article on InformationWeek starred in my Google Reader for a while now, and wanted to post some commentary on it. I absolutely *hate* when people ask this question. “Are cellphones replacing landlines?” Um, yes, of course.
I mean, seriously, is this even still a valid question? I’ve not had a landline number since I moved out of my parents’ house. Even then, none of my friends had that number. I’ve used my cellphone exclusively since I got it. That’s *why* I got it, isn’t it?
The article goes on to list the reasons why cellphones are more popular than landlines and such.
I’d like to pose this question: Other than pure laziness in cancelling it, or the fact that your DSL provider requires it, how many SMStextnews readers even HAVE a landline anymore? Do you actually USE it?
The question then becomes, why in the heck are we paying so much for our mobiles? Why will $40 in the U.S. only get you ~450 minutes in the daytime, albeit with unlimited nights and weekends on your mobile, when you can get unlimited landline service for $20-30?
Good questions. I’ve often wondered why we pay so much for mobile lines when there would have been rioting in the streets of the US if we had to pay that much per month for land lines.
However, I think it is/was because mobile lines were seen, and to some extent, are still seen as a luxury unlike a land line. Consumers and consumer watchdog groups were successfully able to lobby that landlines were necessary for safety and the public welfare. No such arguement has ever been raised for cell phones.
And by the time it reaches the critical mass where such a change would be viable, it will be too late to corral the cell phone companies to lower their rates without them screaming bloody hell to the FCC, President, Congress and anyone else who will listen.
But I also think the number of people who still have landlines is only because it is a requirement for DSL. If there was a way to get wireless service to all computers in a home at a decent speed without having to keep a landline, I’d ditch mine in a moment.
I agree that the requirement makes up a large number. For instance, I have AT&T DSL at my apartment. Obviously it has a phone line, and they ask for the number when I call in for tech support. Unfortunately, I have NEVER once plugged a phone into the wall (not that I actually have one to begin with) and thus have no idea what my number might be. It’s a shame, really. Would be much easier to simply tie it to my mobile and ditch the landline altogether.
I ditched my landline over two years ago in favour of voip thru my router — a conventional handset plugs straight in. Not that I use it often as my calls package is plenty enough for me.
Almost all my voice calls are through my mobile as are short text messages. Email, either on the desktop or via Gmail’s rather slow IMAP on my phone, dominates longer text messages, photo messages and file transfers.
I’m connected for much of the day to three IM networks on both the desktop and mobile. The X-series phone also has it’s own Skype client offering thousands of free Skype-Skype calls every month, in case I ever find the need.
But I’ve found voip a very hard sell amongst my contacts — hell, even getting most of them to send an IM rather than an SMS while they’re sat in front of their PCs, is quite a challenge!
That might change if Google ever get around to producing a decent mobile version of GTalk.
Speaking of which, I wonder how often people use the ‘voice over IM’ facility of Google Talk?
I haven’t used a dedicated landline since moving out of college dorms. And even then, it was only because it was a point of contact for family.
I assume that the run to fewer landlines will continue. And considering that most DSL providers do offer naked DSL, having a landline for such an item might not prove to be a solid investment for them either.