Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Todd Allcock
    Guest
    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..."





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




  2. #2
    Larry
    Guest

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

    "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> 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!




  3. #3
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: For Larry... "Space scientist says texting is four times more expensive thanreceiving scientific data from space"

    At 15 May 2008 02:31:46 +0000 Larry wrote:

    > > 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! ;-)






  4. #4
    Dennis Ferguson
    Guest

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

    On 2008-05-15, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
    > "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> 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.


    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



  • Similar Threads