Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: 2060s cellphones (was Re: SR2->SR3 questions)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:11:51 +0200
According to Dan Grabon, at 18:48 on 20 Jul 00, the word on the street
was...

> I'd say it already IS smaller. There are flip-phones the size of Zippo
> lighters. I think they're PCS rather than cellular

PCS?

> -- that seems to make some difference from the models I've seen-- but
> anyway, that's right now. 60-odd years in the future, that'll probably
> be the *largest* size. I'd say concealability of 8-10.

My comment was based on a TV documentary I watched a few months ago that
dealt with cellphones (among other tings, IIRC). Someone ripped one open
using a huge screwdriver, and showed what's inside ("This isn't covered by
the waranty" :) The radio and its associated shielding takes up much of
the available space, simply because there's a limit to the size to which
it can be shrunk. The reason they mentioned this was because guy was
working for a company that tries to design smaller versions of existing
electronics :)

If it does turn out to be possible to make smaller radio transmitters with
the necessary range, a cellphone the size of a cigarette lighter shouldn't
be too hard to make. The main consideration would become to make it large
enough that it remains usable, though with voice recognition in the thing
even this isn't a real problem anymore.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Can we scratch beneath this?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 2
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: 2060s cellphones (was Re: SR2->SR3 questions)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:35:12 -0700
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> > I'd say it already IS smaller. There are flip-phones the size of Zippo
> > lighters. I think they're PCS rather than cellular
>
> PCS?

To quote from Intel "PCS stands for Personal Communications Service. It
refers primarily to a group of three digital cellular phone technologies in
North America collectively known as PCS. These are GSM 1900, CDMA IS-95, and
TDMA IS-136. If you connect your PCS cellular phone to your laptop PC, you
can wirelessly use data applications to do Internet browsing, corporate
LAN/database access, fax, short messaging service and email." Still cellular
obviously, just a more capable standard (that is far from universal at the
moment).

> > -- that seems to make some difference from the models I've seen-- but
> > anyway, that's right now. 60-odd years in the future, that'll probably
> > be the *largest* size. I'd say concealability of 8-10.
>
> My comment was based on a TV documentary I watched a few months ago that
> dealt with cellphones (among other tings, IIRC). Someone ripped one open
> using a huge screwdriver, and showed what's inside ("This isn't covered by
> the waranty" :) The radio and its associated shielding takes up much of
> the available space, simply because there's a limit to the size to which
> it can be shrunk. The reason they mentioned this was because guy was
> working for a company that tries to design smaller versions of existing
> electronics :)

The size factor is mainly so that it has enough power to contact the nearest
cell transciever. As those get smaller and more of them pop up they can cut
down the size even more. Of course even now they have already reached the
point where some cellphones are so small as to be practicaly unusable.

> If it does turn out to be possible to make smaller radio transmitters with
> the necessary range, a cellphone the size of a cigarette lighter shouldn't
> be too hard to make. The main consideration would become to make it large
> enough that it remains usable, though with voice recognition in the thing
> even this isn't a real problem anymore.

You don't need voice recognition, just an standard microphone and some sort
of speaker to hear what the shlub on the other end is trying to say. In the
SR timeline I imagine most "cellphones" work using voice-over-net tech much
like Dialpad and the like.

Now satphones on the other hand, unless you're going by FASAs archaic view
of satcom tech (don't get me started!) will probably not get overly much
smaller then they are now (which is to say about as big as a normal
cellphone with an antenna about 8-11 inches long that is usually screwed on
or flips out).

YMMV, personally I don't have a problem with the price reduction in SR3.
Personally I'd cut the prices even more, I can go into Frys and buy a phone
(no kickbacks) for FAR cheaper then it lists in SR3. If I want more features
(web browser, built-in video games) I'm going to pay more for the phone and
maybe more for the service. But they already note service costs in SR. Since
its doubtful that standard cell pricing in SR is going to be epanded upon
you can always use 2000 pricing and base the prices in SR on that.

Ken
Message no. 3
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: 2060s cellphones (was Re: SR2->SR3 questions)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:43:30 +0200
According to Tzeentch, at 10:35 on 20 Jul 00, the word on the street
was...

> > If it does turn out to be possible to make smaller radio transmitters with
> > the necessary range, a cellphone the size of a cigarette lighter shouldn't
> > be too hard to make. The main consideration would become to make it large
> > enough that it remains usable, though with voice recognition in the thing
> > even this isn't a real problem anymore.
>
> You don't need voice recognition, just an standard microphone and some sort
> of speaker to hear what the shlub on the other end is trying to say.

I meant for making the phone dial people, store phone numbers, etc. If
it's so small you need a pencil to punch the buttons, voice recognition
might be a handy thing to have built into a telephone -- after all, it
already has just about everything on-board for it except the software.

> YMMV, personally I don't have a problem with the price reduction in SR3.
> Personally I'd cut the prices even more, I can go into Frys and buy a phone
> (no kickbacks) for FAR cheaper then it lists in SR3. If I want more features
> (web browser, built-in video games) I'm going to pay more for the phone and
> maybe more for the service. But they already note service costs in SR. Since
> its doubtful that standard cell pricing in SR is going to be epanded upon
> you can always use 2000 pricing and base the prices in SR on that.

Since cellphone prices aren't really ased on what the things actually cost
at the present, maybe in SR the phone companies use a different strategy,
and do set the price to reflect manufacturing (etc.) costs. That would
nicely explain the differences between RL prices and SR ones, and also the
differences in price between types of phone.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Can we scratch beneath this?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about 2060s cellphones (was Re: SR2->SR3 questions), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!