Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Cellphones Communications United States

Texting On the Rise In the US 468

frontwave links to this stat-laden overview of trends in text-messaging among Americans, citing a few of its findings: "The average teen (even including teens without cell phones) sends and receives five times more text messages a day than a typical adult. A teen typically sends or receives 50 text messages a day, while the average adult sends or receives 10. Fully 31% of teens send more than 100 texts a day and 15% send more than 200 a day, while just 8% and 5% of adults send that many, respectively."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Texting On the Rise In the US

Comments Filter:
  • by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @05:08AM (#33633376)
    I receive 10 a month.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jridley ( 9305 )

      Hell, I sometimes go 2 or 3 weeks without even turning my phone ON. I don't think my send and receive together add up to 10 a YEAR.
      'Course, there's essentially zero coverage at my house. Texts CAN get through there, but it takes up to 2 or 3 hours by my tests.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jawnn ( 445279 )
      I can beat that. Not counting automated monitoring squawks, I receive less than 1 per month from humans. I give thanks for this regularly. While the ability to communicate in media other than voice, from just about anywhere has it's merits, it is in most case a barrier to effective communication. No one can type as fast as they can talk, so when you factor in the time it takes for the sender to actually type, actually getting the message takes far longer than just reading it. The only real benefit of text i
  • Honest question (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Paolo DF ( 849424 )
    I always wondered why the Americans adopted SMS sooooo later than European
  • id hv thort it waz hi'er tbh m8 seamz bit lo 2 me
  • by Nick Fel ( 1320709 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @05:13AM (#33633398)
    We're glad you could join us in blindly walking into lamp posts while stumbling and texting down the street.
    • by foobsr ( 693224 )
      ... blindly walking into lamp posts ...

      I recall I managed to do that as a child daydreaming without any gadgetry.

  • I wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)

    ... the impact this has on their verbal language skills.
  • First there was the carrying of messages.
    Then came the telegraph with the morse code.
    Then finally came speech over the wire and radio wave.

    And now we are back to text?

    I guess this is my age showing, but what is the advantage of sending text when I can just make a call?

    • I'll pick you up at 5PM tomorrow.

    • Re:Progress (Score:5, Informative)

      by ConfusedVorlon ( 657247 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @07:31AM (#33634058) Homepage

      It's a much less intrusive form of communication. I can send you a small bit of info (e.g. meet at xxx at y) without interrupting whatever you are doing at the moment.

      A phone call generally takes me 30-60 seconds, plus some waiting for the call to connect. A text is much faster (and can be sent to multiple recipients)

      It's much more discreet for the sender (can send text from meeting/class/dinner)

      It is a lot like email - but generally more available on phones, and with approximately real-time delivery to the recipient's attention. By comparison, a lot of people might not check their email for hours (or even days) at a time.

      For a lot of plans, it is also a lot cheaper than voice calling. (in the uk at least, lots of pretty cheap plans come with effectively unlimited texting)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by smallfries ( 601545 )

      Low-latency asynchronous communication has different benefits to low-latency synchronous communication.

      For example if you are trying to organise something with a bunch of people then it is easier firing texts between each other than making a series of phone-calls.

      But is this really news? When I was teen in the late 90s this was equally true. If anything my generation use texts less because we can afford nice phones that have IM clients...

    • Re:Progress (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ImNotAtWork ( 1375933 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @07:37AM (#33634104)

      1. You can read faster than a good portion of people can speak.

      2. No one gets to know what you are conversing over. (teens especially love this)

      3. No one has to hear about what you are discussing. (I'm talking to you Mr. really loud cell phone talker guy)

      4. If you have a crappy memory it is there for retrieval instead of trying to recall what was discussed.

      I hate texting but I ask my significant other to text me the grocery list so other people at work/bus/train don't have to hear/know that I need to pick up some rich chocolaty ovaltine.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by hex0D ( 1890162 )
        you don't buy many groceries at one time do you? How many items can you list in 140 characters?
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by xaxa ( 988988 )

          you don't buy many groceries at one time do you? How many items can you list in 140 characters?

          How old is your phone if it won't do long messages? My phone seems to have a limit of 765 characters. My phone from about 2001 did the same.

          (Beyond that it says "Sending as MMS" (which aren't unlimited on my plan), I'm not sure if my 2001 phone did this, I've never reached the limit in practise.)

    • Re:Progress (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shadowrat ( 1069614 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @08:07AM (#33634264)
      It's fire and forget. You don't have the risk of getting sucked into a conversation. It doesn't require that the recieving party be present at the time of sending. It's usually faster to receive than a voicemail.

      For example: while snowboarding, if separated, my friends and I usually text each other to say what area/bar we are going to. Service is spotty on the mountain, but sooner or later they go into a spot where the message shows up. Vm doesn't always come through in these conditions, and who wants to pull off hats and goggles when it only takes 3 or four words to get the message across.

      I would think Internet based communications are replacing SMS, but even in my example SMS seems to work better as all you need is a gsm signal. Often the Internet doesn't work well when you have a really weak edge signal.
  • This is news? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HungryHobo ( 1314109 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @05:16AM (#33633416)

    really? this is news?
    I live in europe and I and most of the people I knew texted like that.
    Teenagers like to talk, gossipe and plan meeting up.
    It's what they do.

  • well, well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 2010 @05:20AM (#33633430)

    In 1992, I was the first teen at school to carry a palmtop around in all my lessons (geek!), a Psion Series 3a.

    In 1995, I joined the ham radio club at school.

    In 1998, I first browsed the 'net using a mobile from a tethered computer in McDonalds in London.

    In 1999, I bought the Motorola Timeport, the first triband WAP 'phone.

    I've gone through Palm PDAs, Librettos, iPaqs, etc. (Never a Newton, though.)

    Anyway I guess my point is that I've had fun with some early-ish little boxes.

    Today I send on average about 0.1 texts per day, and hate them. Seriously, 50 a day, what the fuck? Am I alone in feeling this?

  • The Actual Report (Score:5, Informative)

    by cappp ( 1822388 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @05:21AM (#33633436)
    The report from which the numbers are derived can be found here []

    It's worth having a read of, there's some rather fascinating demographic info in there that could really make for an interesting chat. Oh, and the report shows that 24% of teens send under 10 messages a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, generally the same across racial and economic groupings.
  • Surprise Surprise! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kilrah_il ( 1692978 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @05:22AM (#33633440)

    And this is surprising because...? I don't understand why it amazes anyone that kids text more than adults. Even without taking into account that kids embrace technology more than (some) adults, we have many reasons for the "findings" of the study:
    1) Kids have more spare time.
    2) Kids spend their time communicating with their friends.
    3) In classes, texting is the only possible way to communicate with others without the teacher catching on to you (electively replacing the secret notes of our generation)
    Probably many more reasons, but I don't feel like trying too hard thinking about them. I'll SMS you when I figured out some more.

  • The original report can be found here [].
    Have a quick read over the original Pew study if you can, there's some decent info in there that could support a really interesting chat. Oh, and 24% of teens are sending under 10 messages a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups.
  • I'm sure if you looked into the number of minutes each group talks on the phone, you would find the breakdown in reverse. I find nothing surprising in this article.
  • until all those teens realize the cellular carriers are royally screwing them on texting plans, and rise up to do something about it?

  • by MavEtJu ( 241979 ) <> on Monday September 20, 2010 @05:27AM (#33633464) Homepage

    100 per day... Imagine 14 hours in a day being awake, that is 7 per hour.

    I wouldn't have time to do other things anymore!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SharpFang ( 651121 )

      You're missing bulk sending. You send "class cancelled" to 30 student friends in the morning, "meet at the pub at 19" in the afternoon and you're already 1/3 down the quota.
      Also, some people use them like chat apps. 100 lines of active conversation on IRC isn't all that much.

  • Damn, I don't send any!
  • How can "teens without cell phones" send and receive texts ?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by martas ( 1439879 )
      of course they can. they can send/recv 0 texts a day. just add that with the rest, and you have yourself an average. tada!
  • Wow.

    Is it me, or is that really a lot?
    And 15% send more than 200 text messages per day? Even if that takes 15 seconds per text message (reading or writing, assuming super fast texting, and the mandatory spelling mistakes), then they spend nearly 1 hour per day texting.
    And the costs of texting must be quite significant too!

    The only remark in TFA was that kids without mobile phones text too. So, do we include twitter then? Chat services?

    And all that texting is in addition to the other technologies that the yo

    • by Hadlock ( 143607 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @07:53AM (#33634184) Homepage Journal

      15 seconds per message is a lot of time. Some of my friends pick up their texting habits from their younger siblings still in college (which I'm sure share similar habits of high schoolers). At least 20% of their texts are "sup" "u there?" "hi" "nm (not much)" "where r u" and of course... "im bored".
      One of my friends' (she's 26) text messages take 10-15 seconds to decipher because she only spells phonetically, and cuts out most vowels, which makes most words 2-4 chars long.
      Q.E.D. most messages take 3 seconds to read, respond, and send. 1000 text messages at 3 seconds each is only 50 minutes a day, and I once worked with someone in college who could prove she sent/received 1000 text messages (combined) a day, so it does exist, and it doesn't seem to affect their ability to work student jobs.
      Also, when you're unemployed (a student) you tend to have a lot of down time on your hands if you're trapped at home and don't plan on doing your homework anyways.

  • by glwtta ( 532858 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @05:33AM (#33633506) Homepage
    I take it "adults" here is defined as 18-30? With everyone older going into the "Eww, gross!" category.

    There's just no way that all adults average out to 10 messages a day.
  • by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @05:34AM (#33633512)

    that addicted to something.

    Then again, I use IRC. But, as long as something isn't controlling your life, no harm I guess.

  • The data is taken from a Pew study, the original of which can be found here [].

    There's some decent info in there, more than enough to support a really interesting chat if anyone cares to dig in. Oh, and 24% of teens text under 10 times a day, girls more than boys, older more than younger, and generally the same across racial and economic groups. And the relevent part of the report that the summary seems to have missed

    Since 2006, text messaging has increased significantly from 51% of teens who were text use

  • Exactly how are teens *without_cell_phones* sending and receiving texts? Maybe I should go and read TFA... because I'm having a difficult time understanding that without picturing cyborgs or something.

  • Why not IM or some other sane method of communication? *headscratch*

  • "Tell me, Mr. Teenager... what good is a mobile phone.... if you're unable... to.. speak?"


  • The average adult (even including adults without slashdot) sends and receives five times more slashdot comments a day than a typical teen. An adult typically sends or receives 50 slashdot comments a day, while the average teen sends or receives 10. Fully 31% of adults send more than 100 slashdot comments a day and 15% send more than 200 a day, while just 8% and 5% of teens send that many, respectively.
  • That's one message every 7 minutes and 12 seconds. Impressive. How high are those people's phone bills? Or are there unlimited text messaging plans available? And more importantly: how much of these messages actually contain any amount of significant information?
    • by martin ( 1336 )

      in the Uk unlimited txt plans aren't unusual, or even for pay-as-you-go have very small per txt fees even free if you top up by £x per month

  • by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @05:51AM (#33633576) Homepage

    Before I went to Asia, I never sent a text message in my life. When I got back after my first stay, I started sending text messages to friends and such. Many of them had never received one before, and wondered why their phone was making that strange sound. People would just rather call you and say what they want to say instead of taking all the time to write out a text. I a point.

    What's good about texts? Well, they're great when communicating with people who speak English as a second or third language. They have time to think about what they're going to say, and they have time to decipher what you say. Of course, mobile slang is extremely difficult for them. The advantages with native English speakers? You have time to reply at your leisure, and a record is kept of all conversations. If the recipient's phone is off, the network will store the message and deliver it when power is restored or when they pay their bill. Er...that's all I can think of.

    Negatives about texts? The laborious nature of texting means that the English language is horribly mangled in order to fit. The only real solution is a keyboard...T9 is a kludge and letter-by-letter texting is just too much work. It condenses thoughts into tiny pieces to fit inside 140 characters. Text messaging is horribly expensive for its cost.

    Frankly, I think a lot of people just send texts in order to be able to play with their phones. It's fun when you're stuck on a bus and bored, you can talk to six friends at once. But to get some work done or exchange real information, it's easier just to call. The bandwidth of voice is so much greater than that of text messaging. Heck, I even notice this with instant messaging (something else I never bothered with before Asia), it takes 40 minutes to have a conversation when the same phone call would have taken 5 minutes. People in my office will sit at their desks and send MSN to each other instead of talking. It's weird...a quiet office with no sound but clattering keyboards.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Fearan ( 600696 )

      You're missing the important aspect of ..sometimes I don't want to or can't speak with someone. In this case, txt is much easier. My friends don't have BBs or iPhones, so they can't instantly check their emails. However, everyone is a txt msg away. They don't worry about disturbing me in a meeting or class, and I don't have to waste time checking voicemail (which takes a LONG time). Unless you're writing a novel about txt msg use, for most things you would say by phone, a txt is usually easier & quicker

  • Wow, teenagers text more than adults? Seriously?

    Somehow, I would have never guessed that...

  • y wd i want 2 txt? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kclittle ( 625128 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @05:55AM (#33633592)
    Why would I actually choose to use some chicklets-keyboard, or way overly-sensitive virtual keyboard, when I can just _call_? I mean, it's a PHONE, gawddamnit!

    Signed, Captain Curmudgeon Old Fart
    • by Timmmm ( 636430 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @07:35AM (#33634092)

      1. You don't have to talk to the person.
      2. It allows them time to think and come up with a good response.
      3. You don't have to listen to them thinking.
      4. It's cheaper.
      5. You can send the same text to more than one person.
      6. They can reply at their leisure if they are busy.
      7. You have a written record of their response.
      8. You don't annoy other people by talking (e.g. on a train).

      Need more?

      Of course there are times when a call is more appropriate, e.g. if you need an instant answer, or want to negotiate something. And 200 texts a day is insane to the point that I don't believe it.

  • I always thought that the low use of SMS in the US was due to the prevalence of cars. In Europe people spend a lot of time sending them while in public transportation. Obviously you can't do that while commuting in your car, but you can still speak on the phone... however the consequences...
  • I only send or receive about 5 text messages a month. If that.
  • In my case, we're not allowed to use our cell phones for 'personal calls' at work. So what I do several times a day is to text. I put my phone in vibrate mode so when I receive a response, I feel the vibration then I simply look at the gadget. That's your reason for the spike in texting.

  • Had 2 typ lk this 2 gt it.

  • by hcpxvi ( 773888 )
  • Across the pond, in the UK, the trend is the other way. Very few children spend their days texing; they used to, but no more.

    For a contract, 600 free minutes is not unheard of, and adding unlimited texts is the norm. When you have 20 minutes of free talk time a day, why bother texting?

    When texts were cheaper than voice, everyone texted.

    These days, texting is for the olds (who still think it's cheaper).
  • The typical teen sends more texts - by a factor of about 10 - per day, than I have ever sent.
  • Text messages and texting in general is just a stepping stone before always-on internet becomes the norm. Once everyone's phone is online constantly you will see people use AIM, Skype, or similar products instead. Apart from getting an instant reply and richer, longer, content, they're also cheaper. If you're paying for always-on internet anyway (which I'm assuming everyone will be) it will cost you nothing additional to message someone. Frankly the cell phone companies are only speeding up this process by
  • Where the hell are they finding time between all of that texting to text even more ?
  • Call me or e-mail me. I've got e-mail on my cell phone, it makes a plinky sound, I answer it promptly, and it ultimately ends up on my computer where all the real work is done and tracked. If it's urgent, or you have a question requiring nuanced answers, call me. If you're contemplating texting me that you're going to be late or some other little small annoying news, grow a pair quickly and call me instead. I'd rather a phonecall from an adult than a dodgey text from a weasel.

    Maybe I'm missing something

  • Most average slashdot summaries (even including summaries that don't include statistics) are less confusing and ambiguous than this summary. But that's only if we are talking about _average_ summaries, not _typical_ summaries.
  • How extended are the mobiles with internet capability in the states? There should be a point where it's more expensive to send so many messages instead of having internet and using any of the thousands of alternatives.

  • lolomg rly? (Score:4, Funny)

    by metalmaster ( 1005171 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @06:15AM (#33633704)
    IN LATE BREAKING NEWS: Kids with all the time in the world spend it texting their friends! Adults on the other hand, well, they do more productive things; like less texting.
  • do a control group of adults who get their cell phone bills paid for by someone else and see how the usage pattern varies from the adult norm.

  • I'm a university student, and I send and receive less than 5 a day, on average. (That's including events such as Humans vs Zombies week.) Then again, I'm the sort of nerd who spends his time on Slashdot...
  • I thought you USians told me that it hadn't caught on there?

    even the average adult daily figures seem high.

  • by martin ( 1336 ) <maxsec@gmail . c om> on Monday September 20, 2010 @06:17AM (#33633718) Journal

    For me in the UK I would prob say this happened around the year 2000 if not before. So this prob means litres, kilograms, meters and ISO paper is just around the corner for the USA soon then :-)

  • Is this new to anyone?
  • This does not imply a trend, since these groups are entirely different.

    If the same group does it over time, then we see a trend. Compare random samples of adults over time and then you get a trend. You do not get a trend when you compare teenagers to adults.

    Move along, there is absolutely nothing to see here.

  • He's....he's not going to make it, better prepare for the worst. I mean "prpr 4 d wrst lol!"
  • If you want to call "OK" a "text".

  • I am finding it very hard to believe this to be honest.

    I barely send 2-3 messages a day - I talk to whoever I want on Instant Messenger instead.

    And especially with smartphones (which can run IMs) on the rise - I don't see how anyone can send that many.

  • This does not imply a trend, since these groups are entirely different.

    If the same group does it over time, then we see a trend. Compare random samples of adults over time and then you get a trend. You do not get a trend when you compare teenagers to adults.

    Move along, nothing to see here.

  • Fully? The difference between 'and' and 'or' (both? either?). What kind of journalistic crap is this?


  • it'd be far more popular, as it is everywhere else in the world that does sender pays.

    (I'm assuming I'm right when I've heard that in the US you pay for the SMSes you receive)

  • If you classify "OK" as a "text".

  • New savior-vivre. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Monday September 20, 2010 @06:27AM (#33633766) Homepage Journal

    SMS is not a replacement of calls, it's complementary. Calls are intrusive, require full, unbroken attention, and are obtrusive to people around.

    Calls are a valid method to pass urgent important message and the acknowledgment of receiving it is essential, or to ask an urgent short question. They are good when you want to conduct a longer conversation and both parties are not occupied.

    Text messages are good for passing an announcement that doesn't require immediate attention or confirmation, to ask a question that may require research, to pass data that should be retained (written down) like addresses, directions, phone numbers (no, mom, don't dictate this to me, just disconnect and text me that address) and for a discrete conversation when normal phone call would be disruptive to others around.

    You don't text strangers requiring answer - it's rude when they have to pay to answer unsolicited question.
    You don't call when you suspect the other person is busy. You may text them to call (or ring) you when they have free time to call instead.
    You may send text to remind about something.
    You do not depend on SMS as the only channel with important messages. You only use them when calling fails, and then still try to reach the other party by means that let them acknowledge receiving the message.

    SMS is no longer about being cheap. It's an essential element of the culture of communication.

  • I read the article and it doesn't explain anywhere how someone without a mobile can text anyone.
    I mean, maybe they're using an online text messaging service, but that seems unlikely, as you might as well send them an email []

  • I don't know anyone who sends that many texts in a week, let alone a day, and I know a lot of students.

    I suspect that this is a case where the average is not terribly meaningful and a histogram or boxplot would be more useful. There must be a few people texting their thumbs off to offset all the people who don't spend their days looking at their phones.

  • This, on one hand, explains why twitter is so popular -- it makes it easier to text to more of your friends.

    Twitter, on the other hand, amplifies the number of texts you receive, and gives you more impetus to send to your friends.

  • What is this? Was this study commissioned by the "Get Off My Lawn Association" or is the US mobile telecom industry really that far behind the rest of the world? This news really is a decade old; I can recall similar numbers coming out in Ireland and the UK back in 2000.

    Despite the absurdity of US telecoms pricing schemes, I still can't believe that texting is still some kind of novel phenomena in the US at this late stage. There are kids in deepest Africa, darkest Peru and the wilds of Connemara who know what a text message is by now. The US baby boomers can't possibly still be ignorant of it can they?

  • Whoever invented word "texting" should be shot.

  • by AVryhof ( 142320 )

    lol this fnny i luv txting!

  • The average teen (even including teens without cell phones) sends and receives five times more text messages a day than a typical adult. A teen typically sends or receives 50 text messages a day, while the average adult sends or receives 10.

    Pew really ought to try interviewing a few people outside of the urban DJ population.

  • As a techie, I send maybe one SMS per week. After a while you realize that there is such a thing as being *too* reachable. If you're getting dozens of SMS's a day, plus calls, IM, Twitter, and what not - well, there's no time to actually *do* anything.
  • 0mg 0kxting is liek, t0taly laem. Wat r u d0in l0l? Im w0tchin TV :) ^ Snt dis fr0m mi f0ne l0l
  • Just checking.. been a long while since I last commented.

  • I wonder how they count text messages for studies like this. Like, lets say I have a a smartphone with a QWERTY keyboard. Does that still count as texting when I don't have to depend on T9 prediction to get something written quickly? What if I send the message via email instead of SMS? With smartphone and mobile Internet service usage on the rise, the amount of text being sent though the Net and not just a cell company's network has changed. What about messages sent via IM services from a phone? Those messa

  • There is, at the same time, a recent article on the CBC website saying that Mounties are asking people (especially youths) to please not text messages to 911 [].
  • If TXT was free, or something reasonable like 1 cent / message, I would use it more. Currently, my carrier (Bell Canada) charges 10 cents / message both outbound AND inbound. At that cost, it is way too expensive for me to use TXT casually. And I don't have a need for it to justify a $5 / month 100 TXT add on to my bill.

    TXT costs carriers $0 since it uses unused space in the protocol, so I don't see how they feel justified in 10 cents / message. From my understanding TXT is much cheaper in Europe.

    Final poin

  • by Ihmhi ( 1206036 )

    I honestly can't understand the popularity of things like SMS messaging. How can you even say anything remotely of significance or intelligence with only 160 ch

  • heya,

    I'm surprised that something like Google Voice hasn't taken over in the US for SMSes...any reason?

    I have a Voice account, but I'm in Australia =(. It doesn't make sense though, SMSes surely aren't the most efficient way of transmitting messages, and their cost is also way our of proportion to the cost to the provider. Also, with unlimited data plans available now, surely it makes more sense to use TCP as the transport?


  • Considering that prices have gone down a lot in the past couple of years (I've noticed no-contract prepaid plans with unlimited text + data as low as $25/month, with QWERTY phones $100 -- prices that were unheard of here in the U.S. a couple of years ago), and the fact that the selection of phones designed for messaging (e.g., those with keyboards and/or touch screens) has increased so much over the past couple of years.

  • It seems that nobody cares about this issue. 1st post.
  • Does this make an newsworthy item? A blog entry that, as only source, states "a recent report from the Pew Research Center" ?

    I guess I know now why nobody at Slashdot cares to RTFA.

  • But traditional texting is in decline in favor of internet based Ping and such. What'sApp is getting realy popular and it's everywhere; iPhone, Android...

  • The dog was quoted as saying "bark!" and the man said "ow!"

  • I rarely send 10 in a month, and I'm not really that old.

    My first cell phone was a Qualcomm 2700 dual band on Sprint PCS (back when they were called that). Maybe since I started off using a phone to make phone calls the idea of text messaging didn't have that much appeal to me when it became a big idea several years later?
  • What?! A covert method for children to communication without adults overhearing them is popular? Inconceivable! This is also the 21st version of passing notes in class... I'm waiting for the next gen of phones will simply allow you to "think" text messages, thereby eliminating the clicking of keypads.

This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.