How many texts sent in Ireland each year?

Mark63

Just wondering. Saw a figure of 4.4 billion in 2005. I assume this has gone up alot by now. Any ideas or where I might get the figure?

Conor108

Over 4 mil a year is all google will say

According to that 'Did You Know?' video on youtube, the number of texts sent each day exceeds the population of the planet (6.7-ish billion)

Jay P

Conor108 wrote: »

Over 4 mil a year is all google will say

I'd say it's more than that. I send about a hundred, and I know a lot of people who send a lot more than that. And considering theres over four million in the country, I'd say it's a long way over the 4.4 billion from 2005.

Schism

It must be billions, teenagers are compulsive texters.

homerjay2005

ah ya,id say its alot more than 4 million. we would nearly send that a day surely.

antodeco

Ireland are 2nd in the world for txt usage per head, only behind Japan. Cant remember what the actual figures are, but from the 25th Dec - 1st Jan, we sent over 1 billion last year!

WooPeeA

This film is awesome Conor108!!

Conor108

WooPeeA wrote: »

This film is awesome Conor108!!

I know its pretty cool:D

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Yeah, but Skynet will take over and start a nuclear war that will wipe us all out in June 2048...

WooPeeA

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Yeah, but Skynet will take over and start a nuclear war that will wipe us all out in June 2048...

Run_to_da_hills

All those billions of texts are stored for five years under data retention laws. Someone somewhere has a big computer :eek:

towel401

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

All those billions of texts are stored for five years under data retention laws. Someone somewhere has a big computer :eek:

even the ones i sent to all the girls i stalk?

i should start using one-time pads and hand them out to my victims. and they will end up being used as evidence in court so either way i'm ****ed.

Run_to_da_hills

towel401 wrote: »

even the ones i sent to all the girls i stalk?

i should start using one-time pads and hand them out to my victims. and they will end up being used as evidence in court so either way i'm ****ed.

Buzz words can also trigger attention in text messages. "Bomb" "Hash" "Assassinate" "Bush" Etc.

They can also detect the location of where messages were sent from unregistered phones to within 15 feet.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Buzz words can also trigger attention in text messages. Try texting "Bomb"
"747" "Assassinate" "Bush" CIA MI5 Etc.

They can also detect the location of where messages were sent from unregistered phones to within 15 feet.

So if I send a n SMS saying "deliver the package" from an unregistered phone, wander over to the nearest McDs, and sit in the window having some dead cow, sooner or later, a SWAT team will arrived and arrest the ****e out of whatever poor sap happens to be standing closest to the exact spot I made the call from...?

Hmm... dinner AND a show!

javaboy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Buzz words can also trigger attention in text messages. "Bomb" "Hash" "Assassinate" "Bush" Etc.

They can also detect the location of where messages were sent from unregistered phones to within 15 feet.

LOOK OUT! They're behind you! :eek:

javaboy

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

So if I send a n SMS saying "deliver the package" from an unregistered phone, wander over to the nearest McDs, and sit in the window having some dead cow, sooner or later, a SWAT team will arrived and arrest the ****e out of whatever poor sap happens to be standing closest to the exact spot I made the call from...?

Hmm... dinner AND a show!

No duh. They'll just tap into the massive network of CCTV cameras that monitor your every movement whenever you're in a public place, and see who was standing on that spot at the time of the call.

Then it's just a simple case of using facial recognition software to pick you out of the crowd in McDonalds. Then extraordinary rendition.

Run_to_da_hills

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

So if I send a n SMS saying "deliver the package" from an unregistered phone, wander over to the nearest McDs, and sit in the window having some dead cow, sooner or later, a SWAT team will arrived and arrest the ****e out of whatever poor sap happens to be standing closest to the exact spot I made the call from...?

Hmm... dinner AND a show!

It would depend on the context of the message and if they had a lead on that person / number.

They can also get the quordinates from a phone that was switched off or down on power. This is how they located the phone in the O' Holohan murder case.

Time Magazine

ComReg report this in their Quarterly Reports. The latest, released two weeks ago states

ComReg wrote:

The total number of SMS messages sent by mobile users in Ireland totalled 2.45 billion in Q2 2008. SMS messaging grew by 4% quarter on quarter, and volumes of SMS have increased by 37% since Q2 2007 and by 76% since the same quarter in 2006. If the total volume of text messages is averaged over all active subscriptions, an average of 157 SMS messages were sent per subscription, per month in Q2 2008, compared with 124 in the same period last year.

So you're looking at about 10bn in the past twelve months.

Run_to_da_hills

javaboy wrote: »

No duh. They'll just tap into the massive network of CCTV cameras that monitor your every movement whenever you're in a public place, and see who was standing on that spot at the time of the call.

Then it's just a simple case of using facial recognition software to pick you out of the crowd in McDonalds. Then extraordinary rendition.

Actually you are correct, most fast food joints have CCTV to record staff assaults, vandalism etc, not so long ago Supermax were up in court proving a case of fraud where a customer slipped in the jacks and tried to claim. It was all recorded on CCTV.

javaboy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They can also get the quordinates from a phone that was switched off or down on power. This is how they located the phone in the O' Holohan murder case.

Source?

Time Magazine

javaboy wrote: »

Source?

A phone is ordinarily untraceable only if the battery is physically removed from the unit. Both the SIM and the phone are identifiable.

javaboy

David McWilliams wrote: »

A phone is ordinarily untraceable only if the battery is physically removed from the unit. Both the SIM and the phone are identifiable.

Not to be pedantic, but have you actually got a decent source for that?

Time Magazine

javaboy wrote: »

Not to be pedantic, but have you actually got a decent source for that?

Yes, but he's not a website.

Run_to_da_hills

javaboy wrote: »

Source?

Ill have to dig it up, it was in the press at the time, apparently the service provider can boost the signal so high that it can pick a signal from the internal clock battery. It is very rarely done because it can damage equipment and is only carried out in extremee cases, IE murders etc.

javaboy

David McWilliams wrote: »

Yes, but he's not a website.

Didn't ask for a website. Just something to back up the statement.

I'm aware that phones aren't really "off" when they're off unless you take the battery out. I'm just a bit skeptical about whether there is actually power going to the antenna when it's turned off.

javaboy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Ill have to dig it up, it was in the papers at the time, apparently the service provider can boost the signal so high that it can pick a signal from the internal clock battery. It is very rarely done because it can damage equipment and is only carried out in extremee cases, IE murders etc.

Sorry I'm confused. When exactly do they boost the signal? While a murder is taking place or afterwards to track down a killer on the run?

Which method was used in the Holohan case?

I mean they can hardly retrospectively boost the signal can they?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

javaboy wrote: »

No duh. They'll just tap into the massive network of CCTV cameras that monitor your every movement whenever you're in a public place, and see who was standing on that spot at the time of the call.

Then it's just a simple case of using facial recognition software to pick you out of the crowd in McDonalds. Then extraordinary rendition.

Easily taken care of - just make sure there is a delievery being made somewhere. And when no attack takes place you're in the clear!

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It would depend on the context of the message and if they had a lead on that person / number.

They can also get the quordinates from a phone that was switched off or down on power. This is how they located the phone in the O' Holohan murder case.

Surely, they act first and ask qusations later?

Time Magazine

javaboy wrote: »

Didn't ask for a website. Just something to back up the statement.

I'm aware that phones aren't really "off" when they're off unless you take the battery out. I'm just a bit skeptical about whether there is actually power going to the antenna when it's turned off.

I'll admit this came from a colleague (I'd rather not give details of where he works etc., but he knows his stuff) who told me authorities in France (or maybe Italy?) caught a murderer who thought he'd be safe just changing his SIM.

Run_to_da_hills

javaboy wrote: »

Sorry I'm confused. When exactly do they boost the signal? While a murder is taking place or afterwards to track down a killer on the run?

Which method was used in the Holohan case?

I mean they can hardly retrospectively boost the signal can they?

What ever service provider he was using was able to locate it on the beach. They can only boost the signaal for a very short period as it can damage equipment. Not sure of the method used. They would hardly do it for tracking down someone on the run.

javaboy

David McWilliams wrote: »

I'll admit this came from a colleague (I'd rather not give details of where he works etc., but he knows his stuff) who told me authorities in France (or maybe Italy?) caught a murderer who thought he'd be safe just changing his SIM.

If the phone was on, I'm not surprised. It's definitely possible. I did a bit of messing around with locating phones using the cell tower info myself.

I'd be interested to know if the phone was off at the time he was traced though.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What ever service provider he was using was able to locate it on the beach. They can only boost the signaal for a very short period as it can damage equipment. Not sure of the method used. They would hardly do it for tracking down someone on the run.

Cool. I didn't hear that at the time. Any links to back it up?

Run_to_da_hills

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Surely, they act first and ask qusations later?

Depends on how serious the treat is. The London metropolitan police are well capable of over reacting on a tip off. As what happened in the Jean Charles de Menezes case.

Run_to_da_hills

David McWilliams wrote: »

I'll admit this came from a colleague (I'd rather not give details of where he works etc., but he knows his stuff) who told me authorities in France (or maybe Italy?) caught a murderer who thought he'd be safe just changing his SIM.

One of the biggest mistakes criminals make is swapping sims around to different phones and contaminating them. Every time you make a call your number and the IMEI number is transmitted.

The Authorities can request details from a service provider of that number and all the IMEI numbers that was used with that "dirty" sim. They can trace all the different phones that were used and match them up with any new Sims that were installed and then tap into them

Time Magazine

javaboy wrote: »

If the phone was on, I'm not surprised. It's definitely possible. I did a bit of messing around with locating phones using the cell tower info myself.

I'd be interested to know if the phone was off at the time he was traced though.

It wasn't off, but the (now truly mysterious) colleague went on to say that the only way you can remove any doubt of a phone being traced is to remove its battery. I hate to say this: but I wouldn't rule out what Run_to_da_hills is saying :pac:

javaboy

David McWilliams wrote: »

It wasn't off, but the (now truly mysterious) colleague went on to say that the only way you can remove any doubt of a phone being traced is to remove its battery. I hate to say this: but I wouldn't rule out what Run_to_da_hills is saying :pac:

Neither would I really.:eek: I'm just very doubtful about whether it is currently the case that it can be done. There is still power going through a phone while it's off so theoretically if the antenna is getting power, it might be possible to track it.

Run_to_da_hills

David McWilliams wrote: »

It wasn't off, but the (now truly mysterious) colleague went on to say that the only way you can remove any doubt of a phone being traced is to remove its battery. I hate to say this: but I wouldn't rule out what Run_to_da_hills is saying :pac:

Remove the battery and sim. Remember there is the internal clock battery. :eek:

javaboy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Remove the battery and sim. Remember there is the internal clock battery. :eek:

But sure if the phone was ever used at all, they have the IMEI and they've already associated it with the sim. So you need to remove the internal clock battery too. It's not like you to miss out on something like that.

Anyway, why exactly do people who are this paranoid about being traced need phones in the first place? They're never going to use them by the sounds of it what with the battery and the sim removed.

Run_to_da_hills

javaboy wrote: »

But sure if the phone was ever used at all, they have the IMEI and they've already associated it with the sim. So you need to remove the internal clock battery too. It's not like you to miss out on something like that. .

They could associate the IMEI, you would want to be on the run for something very serious if they are going to go to that extent.

javaboy wrote: »

Anyway, why exactly do people who are this paranoid about being traced need phones in the first place? They're never going to use them by the sounds of it what with the battery and the sim removed.

You can always shove it in a "Farraday cage" It will block any signals going out.

Bob the Builder

Any phone that loses the time when you pull the battery out cannot be located without the battery being inserted. On the other hand, if you remove the battery from the phone, and re-insert it one minute later, and if its remembered its time, then, in that case - it's location can be tracked every 3-5hours.

With the battery inside, the phone's location may be traced (depending on the phone) between every 10minutes and 2hours.

With the phone on, the phone's location can be traced every 10minutes, or instantly if one was to call the phone. When the phone is turned on and reporting to the network it sends the IMEI and the Sim Number(usually a 12-16 digit phrase written on the sim), which can be traced.

To accurately trace a phone, the phone needs a simultaneous connection with between three and five masts. With two masts, the phone may still be traced, but not as accurately, and with 1 mast, we can merely tell that the phone is in the vicinity of the mast(ie. within 1km).

On newer phones such as the iphone, everytime you connect to the wifi, a software update is checked, which ultimately sends the IP of the router you are at to apple, and if apple wanted to - they could record your movements, from country to country, or if the authorities came, they could trace your exact location. Google are the pretty much the same, except they log where you go on Google Maps as well, so they can see the areas you checked on GMaps/GEarth and then trace you.

Everything you do on a phone can be logged.

Skyuser

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

All those billions of texts are stored for five years under data retention laws. Someone somewhere has a big computer :eek:

It's in Wales I think.

javaboy

nevf wrote: »

Any phone that loses the time when you pull the battery out cannot be located without the battery being inserted. On the other hand, if you remove the battery from the phone, and re-insert it one minute later, and if its remembered its time, then, in that case - it's location can be tracked every 3-5hours.

Can't argue with much else in your post but what's the 3-5 hours thing about? Seems strangely arbitrary to me.

SV

I wonder...

I've sent 48765 texts from this phone and I have it about 6 months.. texting all day every day really.
So I'd say 4.4 billion is only a fraction each year really!

Run_to_da_hills

Skyuser wrote: »

It's in Wales I think.

I think your thinking of that massive building in Wales that used to store analogue phone conversations between Ireland and the UK during the troubles.

I would say that the combined number of the texts sent in this country in one year would probably fit on the average size hard drive.

whiskeyman

Mark63 wrote: »

Just wondering. Saw a figure of 4.4 billion in 2005. I assume this has gone up alot by now. Any ideas or where I might get the figure?

www.comreg.ie is your friend.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0875.pdf

Page 47 has most recent quarterly figures.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ClioV6 wrote: »

I wonder...

I've sent 48765 texts from this phone and I have it about 6 months.. texting all day every day really.
So I'd say 4.4 billion is only a fraction each year really!

Jesus, that's 270 a day....!

If you weret he average, that, ith a population of 5 million, is 492,750,000,000 nationally per year

m@cc@

Jay P wrote: »

I'd say it's more than that. I send about a hundred, and I know a lot of people who send a lot more than that. And considering theres over four million in the country, I'd say it's a long way over the 4.4 billion from 2005.

You do know that a billion = 1000 million?

Time Magazine

whiskeyman wrote: »

www.comreg.ie is your friend.

So it page 1 of this thread...

Mark63

whiskeyman wrote: »

www.comreg.ie is your friend.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0875.pdf

Page 47 has most recent quarterly figures.

Thanks - exactly what I was looking for so about 10 billion a year. Mad!

Bob the Builder

javaboy wrote: »

Can't argue with much else in your post but what's the 3-5 hours thing about? Seems strangely arbitrary to me.

A cheap phone like the Nokia 2600 loses the record of time when you pull out the battery, and as soon as you turn on the phone again, you have to set the time. This basically means that if I killed you, and threw you in a bush, and took the battery out of your phone, but left the phoen there, then the phone cannot be tracked because there's no internal battery sending a signal.

On the other hand, a more expensive Nokia phone like the N95 has an internal battery(so even if you take the big battery out, it won't forget the time), and so, every 3-5 hours, (you will see a tiny flash on your phone), it sends out a pulse, connects to a mast, and then disconnects again. It's called a dummy signal or something like that...