Since it's such a busy day here on the BBS (and I'm bored), I thought I'd ask a stupid question.

What is the deal with Push-to-Talk cellphones, like the irritating Nextel/Sprint bleep system? I can understand the desire for connectivity without using the cellular network, for cost, and for when the network is unavailable, but what does that have to do with PTT? Why does avoiding the cellular network necessitate irritating everyone around you?

In addition, ignoring the out-of-band communication aspect, what is the advantage to that method of using a communication device at all? Walkie-talkies were engineered that way because of technical limitations, not out of desire.

I'm not sure what the question is.

PTT uses the cellular networks -- it's *not* a local walkie-talkie style implementation.

??

It can do either, at least on the Sprint/Nextel phones in the US. I only mentioned that because I didn't want people pointing out that that was the reason people might like it.

I'm specifically asking about the UI, not the pricing or technical aspects.

I think he's asking, "Why can't you have the same functionality by holding the phone to your ear, like normal?"

It seems to me from the Nextel ads that PTT acts like your cell phone while in speakerphone mode.

Actually, you can, although you do still have to press the button, since it's half-duplex communication.

I'm asking: what's attractive about that method?

'Current uses' at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_to_talk ?

I'm too tired to read it and I'm off to bed but it might explain a bit.

Okay, that's a feature I was unaware of. As a conference call/chat thing, the traditional PTT UI doesn't offer any advantages, but for broadcast messages it does.

I used to think the same thing, until I started working with a team on site doing time sensitive work. PTT simply gets things done faster. There's no call(verbal or electronic) call setup teim and no call tear down. Time your next "where did you put the punch down tool" phone call, from the time you start thinking about it to the time you press end and put the phone back in your pocket. PTT will get that call done faster every time. It you make two of those phone calls a day, the extra two minutes doesn't matter. If you make 50 of them, it's a huge productivity boost.

Yes, it's a sociological problem. We should be ok with picking up the phone and hearing "where am I going next?" but for the most part we're not, we want to have a conversation.

Now, to every last PTT carrying person out there: TURN OFF THE GOD DAMN LOUDSPEAKER WHEN YOU'RE NOT ON THE JOBSITE. Every PTT system I've used can be set to vibrate instead of going directly to speakerphone.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't understand how dialing 123*45*67890 is any faster than dialing 123-456-7890 (or finding a PTT number in a contact list is any faster than finding a PSTN number).

And yeah, you can move some delay time from the beginning of the call, waiting for someone to answer the ring, to the middle of the call, waiting for someone to respond. Of course, you also have no feedback that the person received the message at all and you might be waiting for a response that will never happen.

We used it to talk to construction crews that were all over. The ptt feature would connect to all our group's phones, at any time, no dialing beforehand. You would hear things like "where the hell's the backhoe?" and hopefully someone would answer.

I suppose that gangs could use it to coordinate something like a bank robbery. At least that seemed to be the target demographic for the "Boost Mobile" service...

I never got it either. The draw years ago was Nexel charged far less for push to talk than making a normal call. Now it's pointless.

I get what you are saying matthew_k but where I work I always get some dumb ass that keeps asking me something while I am talking to someone in person so I have to fumble around with the phone and turn the speaker off.

No, actually it uses the cellular network for *all* transmissions, including the PTT ones.

Cheers

No, it doesn't.

It's not the time it takes to place the call, though that's generally better, it's the lack of need to make conversation. A conversation consists of:
Person A: Person B?
Person B: Go for Person B.
Person A: What room is on fire again?
Person B: Room 568b.
Person A: 10-4.

VS:
Dammit, I can't remember what room was on fire. I guess I'll call Person B and find out.
Person A: Calls, waits for answer.
Person B: Hello?
Person A: Hi Person A.
Person B: Hi Person B. What can I help you with?
Person A: Well, I'm down here on the second floor, and I was wondering what room you had said was on fire, I'm ready to go there now.
Person B: Hold on, let me look that up.
Person A: Ok.
Person B: It looks like it's 568b.
Person A: 568b. Ok, I'm heading there now.
Person B: Thanks, give me a heads up when you're done.

Now, you'll say that's not fair, you're saying more in the telephone call. But none of it is important.

Now, it doesn't look like the PTT scenario is much faster. But look at person B. Person B had his hip buzz, when he came to a stopping point in his current sentence, said yes, and got a question, gave an answer, and when directly back to whatever he was doing. Also, everyone in person A and person B's vicinity can know which room is on fire if they want to listen. This in infuriating if you're in a movie theater, but when you're all on the same team, it lets everyone keep track of what's happening a little better. If person B leaves the conversation he was having face to face, that person knows and understands exactly why without needing to be told.

Another point in their favor is that phone books are managed centrally somehow. Which means, I show up on site and am issued a walkie with everyone who's anybody's name in it. I've just eliminated ten to twenty "here's my cell number, what's yours" conversations. When you're only at a site for a week, this is a great time savings.

I fully understand that you'll never appreciate the convenience until you've experienced it first hand. But it really does work better in specific situations.

Okay, your argument is that, basically, in certain situations, it's okay to interrupt people. I'll give you that. I guess I can start to understand how there is an improved workflow in those situations.

I guess my ultimate complaint is: assuming you are having a conversation, what is the advantage? And it seems like your feeling is that there is none, that it's only advantageous in situations where you want to avoid conversation. That doesn't explain why people do it, though. I've been around people who were intending to initiate a conversation and did it through PTT anyway.

That said, the lack of in-protocol acknowledgment bugs me, too.

It seems to me that the usefulness of PTT is that it replaces walkie talkies and dispatcher/fleet/serviceteam radio networks. A new or growing company that needs to do that kind of thing no longer has to invest in all the radio equipment, it can just buy the right brand of cell phone for its employees.

Of course, this gives the cell phone companies a chunk of a market that they didn't have before... that's the *true* usefulness of it.

That's just one specific brand of mobile phone, which has a brand-specific feature.

Here's the correct wiki link for PTT.

Cheers

Yeah, the brand that developed PTT and iDEN in the US, with Nextel, who was the only provider who offered PTT or iDEN, and was the only phone you could get from Nextel for many, many years.

Do some other companies offer PTT in the US now? Yeah, but the identity remains with Nextel and the iDEN phones that Motorola sells through them. Regardless, that's why I said "at least on the Sprint/Nextel phones in the US". And the only reason I brought it up at all was to avoid the converse of this exact stupid argument.

Ours were Nextel, which I think became "Boost Mobile". Prior to the Nextel service (which did use the cell network), we used a radio based service, with brick sized walkie talkies. The service had repeaters so we could reach anyone over a 200 mile range, but the annoying thing was we shared the service with many others. They dealt with this by having customer specific subcarriers, so the radio would only unsquelch for our conversations, but there would be collisions that were undetectible by the originator. The Nextel system was much more reliable.

We used these heavily in the years before cell phones, so it may have been more habit to want ppt and get rid of the brick. We don't use ptt any more, just normal cell calls. I don't know of any contractors that still do use ppt. I'm guessing that's why they are marketing it to the public now.

Nextel was purchased by Sprint. Sometime later, they started marketing Boost Mobile as a prepaid service that had PTT. I don't know if they used iDEN or not. Not that it makes a lot of difference.

Also, I never intended to say that Nextel/Motorola PTT never used the cellular network, only that it didn't have to.

I think I knew that. Sprint screwed me royally once, so I left Nextel when Sprint took over. I went to LA Cellular, which was bought by ATT, who also screwed me royally once, so now I've got Verizon.

I thought "Boost Mobile" was a really strange marketing ploy. They used gangs in the TV ads and "Boost" is slang for stealing...



I didn't mean to argue the point, only to say that our service used the cell net. Motorola was the manufacturer of all the radio equipment we used before Nextel.