Push To Talk - Old and Busted or Fresh and Clean?

[Eric Lin]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1914979' target='_blank'>http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1914979</a><br /><br /></div>Once the realm of contractors on the Nextel network, push to talk (PTT) will be spreading to other networks by software that uses always on data connections to turn you handset into a very advanced walkie talkie. The first method to enable this feature are applications that run on smartphones, including the Windows Mobile platform. <br /><br />The Economist (of all magazines) looks at the state of PTT in the US. It looks like ATT and Verizon are both seriously working on adding this to their networks. The Economist even wonders if PTT might be to America what SMS is to the rest of the world- a way to cheaply communicate a short message (nearly) instantly.<br /><br />This is an interesting metaphor, especially in light of Boost mobile. A subsidiary of Nextel meant to sell nextel handsets to the youth market, Boost calls PTT "2-waying." However anyone who knows what kids <i>actually</i> mean when they say "2-way" is to text message, as in 2-way pager. <a href="http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/000937.htm">Textually</a> points out that corporate executives aren't interested in using PTT. Normally i'd hop on my soapbox and point out that what corporate executives want from a mobile phone rarely turns out to be what the mass market wants, since the market is defined by 18-25 year olds. However I can pretty much assure you that Boost is failing with the kids, despite having some of the most hilarious TV ads ever. Their service is too expensive, and none of their friends have Boost, so why would kids want it when all they could do is 2-way themselves?<br /><br />PTT might have a better chance of succeeding as a premium data service on a network that already has a high youth penetration. Or a network with Smartphones like Orange or someone might be able to add it as an extra selling point. Would you use it?

[David Conger]

Since PTT is packets of data instead of standard voice, couldn't this service be integrated into a Smartphone device relativly easily? With SP, I think you could possibly do a PTT style service with some kind of specialized application.

PTT the greatest thing since sliced break to some of the engineers I work with in radio. (Ok, well maybe not the greatest thing, but they seem to use it a heck of a lot.) Quick and easy communication. The problem I have noticed is now everyone has it. When you hear the PTT sound, everyone looks at their phone. The service definatly has its uses though.

[volwrath]

I agree .. Its more of a business thing. It will be interesting when 3 or 4 carriers have it. Will it have interoperability? Doubt it initially.

[Neil]

Textually points out that corporate executives aren't interested in using PTT.

It depends on the executive you ask. I bet if you went to a white collar exec, sure, he'd say it's useless. But ask anyone who's the foreman for a job site and he'll tell you that PTT is the only thing that keeps his crew in communication. In major markets I know the Nextel PTT service is quite popular.

I agree with Eric though, no kid will ever use PTT. Try using it in class and see if the teacher catches you. Now try a text message. Guess which one will go over better? :)

Also, PTT isn't packet based on Nextel, as far as I know. It runs over the regular voice channels, they just have super fast setup times and whatnot.

[Ed Hansberry]

Will it have interoperability? Doubt it initially. Of course not. that would make too much sense. :roll:

[Jerry Raia]

I dont think I would have any use for it.

[rbrome]

Since PTT is packets of data instead of standard voice, couldn't this service be integrated into a Smartphone device relativly easily? With SP, I think you could possibly do a PTT style service with some kind of specialized application.

Yes, and as mentioned in the news bit, technically this is already being done.

But the problem is the setup times and latency. It works over plain GPRS, and you know how long it takes to start a GPRS session - that's hardly "instant" like Nextel. Fastchat has this for Nokia smartphones, but the irony is that it's anything but fast. Even once you get it started, the latency blows - you say something, then they hear it four seconds later. Then another four seconds for the response to get back to you...

To get something that's faster, the phone hardware has to be specifically designed to support PTT. With a software-only solution, basically it's slower and more cumbersome than a phone call, which makes it pretty useless.

[Eric Lin]

can i just say this... neil and rich both posting in one topic, i feel like i'm back at smaller again. i love you guys.

[David McNamee]

I hate push-to-talk. That incoming message chirp is one of the most annoying things to hear in public - you know you're about to hear both ends of a very loud conversation. I don't see any advantage to using push-to-talk instead of placing a regular phone call. They're both one-on-one conversations, they both require you to punch in a series of numbers and press a button. With a cell phone, you even get full duplex!

The PTT feature that NexTel really pushes here in the States is the ability to "instantly" communicate with someone, and there's no chance that you'll land in the other person's voice mail, or the other person won't answer. That's not reality, though, since people I know who have PTT tend to turn off their phones when they want privacy.

It seems to me, that PTT is catching on in industries where walkie-talkies are well-established, and people are loathe to give up something familiar. Construction and theme park operations are two that spring to mind.

[scottmag]

I didn't think I'd have much use for PTT either for the same reasons sited in this thread.

I hate push-to-talk. That incoming message chirp is one of the most annoying things to hear in public - you know you're about to hear both ends of a very loud conversation.

I'd hardly condemn an entire method of communication because of the annoying chirps. That's an implementation issue. There are plenty of annoying ringtones and people talking loudly in public on other carriers. The Nextel chirps can definitely be annoying but it's more of a behavior issue when people have noisy conversations in public.


I don't see any advantage to using push-to-talk instead of placing a regular phone call. They're both one-on-one conversations, they both require you to punch in a series of numbers and press a button. With a cell phone, you even get full duplex!

I thought the same thing until I used it. It's great to be able to relay important information quickly. It helps everyday situations like when someone is following you in a car and you need to tell them one quick thing. I also disagree that kids won't use it. I think young people may embrace it for the same reasons as IM/SMS - it's quick and immediate without the social requirements of an actual conversation. Two kids in a mall can have a "conversation" like this quicker than an actual voice call can ring and connect:
*beep* "Where you at?"
*beep* "In front of Victoria's Secret."
*beep* "Cool. I'm at Abercrombie. I'll be right there."

Scott

[scottmag]

It will be interesting when 3 or 4 carriers have it. Will it have interoperability? Doubt it initially.

In the case of Nextel, it is a function of their network. So it can have high quality and very low latency. It also cannot interoperate with another carrier using technology other than iDEN. The implementations that the other carriers are working on, I believe, is voice-over-IP in a store and forward fashion. This makes it a feature of the phone and the "voice message" packets will travel over the data network (e.g., GPRS). What I've heard is that Verizon's implementation will be like this. So it will function like a text IM in that you will hold on the PTT button, speak your message which will be stored in the phone's memory, and then release the button which will send the message. As opposed to Nextel's implementation where your voice is transmitted in real-time as you speak. Again, this is how I heard it will work. Does anyone know differently?

It's not inherently bad if that's how it works. A good feature of Verizon's PTT is that it will have an online buddy list so you can see from the phone who is available for voice messaging. It could conceivably be interoperable with a desktop IM client in the future. And it could be cross platform if the voice messages were not stored in a proprietary manner. That's a lot of coulds and ifs.

Scott

[David McNamee]

I'd hardly condemn an entire method of communication because of the annoying chirps. That's an implementation issue.

You're right, that is an issue of implementation and people's social concern and should be seperate from the technology. Thank you for forcing me to think about that.

Two kids in a mall can have a "conversation" like this quicker than an actual voice call can ring and connect:
*beep* "Where you at?"
*beep* "In front of Victoria's Secret."
*beep* "Cool. I'm at Abercrombie. I'll be right there."

I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with people on this. I've had that type of conversation on a cell phone, and I've been with people who have had that type of conversation on their PTT. I don't think either method is particularly faster. I will say that there is definitely a perception of speed and convenience among PTT users. I just haven't been convinced that it really exists.