Random Facts: Why SMS Is Only 160 Characters
from the that's-a-bit-refreshing dept
The LA Times has tracked down the reasoning for why SMS text messaging is limited to 160 characters. Basically, one guy working on the project figured that was plenty after typing a bunch of sentences out and noticing that most were less than 160 characters. There was no serious additional research done on it. It just sorta stuck once implemented. In an age where so many things are user-tested to death, it's kind of nice to know this was almost an accident of history, based on the reasoning of one guy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 160 characters, sms, text messaging
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
it must be true
Not making that up....but they may have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shhhh, don't let word word get out.
Better that they believe some knuckle head couldn't string more than 160 coherent characters together. :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The article notes that they could originally only fit 128 characters, and they knew that wasn't enough... so they had to work to get it up to 160.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmm
But yes, SMS used excess signaling capacity in the BCCH if I recall, and for the most part, all the result of a series of mistakes, but adopted from the bottom-up instead of top-down.
In it's infancy before T9 prediction technology, it was seen as too difficult for the older folks, but adopted very quickly by the younger ones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Data Efficiency
Why don’t they include some compression in the text encoding? English text only has an information content of about 1.2 bits per character. You know why people leave vowels out of their txts? They’re basically making up for the lack of compression. But why not let the computers do the work for us?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't know what fancy-pants technologies you are using...
Or is it that your definition of "user-tested" radically different from most high-tech companies I have to deal with?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Heh. Fair enough... I think I was thinking of recent stories about user-testing coming out of Google and Yahoo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Data Efficiency
Bad kids! Go to your room :-P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who needs bete testing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Data Efficiency
1) manual compression, as you said
2) entering each character historically can require a triple-tap, so each skipped character saves more than one keystroke. That's a big speed improvement.
3) overall space is limited, both the 160 limit, and the size of the screen for composing and reading. Shorter fits better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glamorous Story, But Not Quite True
The specs defined the size of packets that were to be sent from the network, over the SS7 signaling network, and then wirelessly over the control channel from a tower to the phones connected to it. The tower needs to communicate with the phones to get their ID, check their credentials, tell them when to switch to another tower, tell them if they have a voicemail waiting, tell them to ring, accept their dialing call requests, etc. These are all "control" events.
Voice calls take place on TWO separate radio channels, one for voice in and one for voice out, and the radio is only activated to do this when needed. This saves on bandwidth and on battery. The control channel, on the other hand, is more or less always on. Phones use this channel to set up the calls and activate the voice channel. THIS is the original purpose of this channel in the GSM standard, and the size and length of control instruction packets was defined around these tasks.
So later on, some people decided to "tack on" the ability to send a message inside this same channel. It WAS smart, and it does make sense. They simply looked at the packet size they had available, and made the best of it. This made it into the GSM standard, and since GSM is a rigid standard, all the terminal vendors built handsets that complied.
It was a great "invention", but it was invention by committee, not one guy (and more than one guy claims credit). That's how the GSM Association works. Also, it was not as "free form" as the LA Times would have you believe - some guy typing messages out to see how long they were, and deciding on 160 characters. Maybe it's true that he did that as well, but if so, he did it just to test whether 160 would be adequate. The SMS specs were already constrained to 140 bytes by the real priority technical specs, and the SMS function was just a "nice to have" add in.
You see, the network control signals were sent between tower and handset in a packet that included header information plus about 140 bytes of payload. If you wanted to piggyback on this existing channel, you had 140 bytes to work with - no matter what your typewriter experiment concluded.
Hillebrand, or someone, then took the 140 byte limit (1 byte = 8 bits = 1 character), and figured an easy way to use a reduced character set of 7 bits each to squeeze 160 characters out of the constraint (140 * 8 / 7 = 160)
Therefore, an SMS message isn't limited to 160 characters because of some dude's typewriter experiment. It is limited because the signaling channel's standard packet size payload was 140 bytes. It's a less glamorous reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Texting is stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
twitter?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Data Efficiency
Uh...no, there is not a one-to-one ratio between words and characters in Asian languages. More like one-to-two in Chinese, but Japanese is even less condensed since it uses many particles and spells out many words using syllabaries. Irrelevant, I admit, but amusing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: twitter?
[ link to this | view in thread ]