One thing that bugs the hell out of me is the limit on the number of characters you can input into one sms: 160. That is less than the number of characters in the first two sentences of this post.

The basic annoyance is that 160 characters is simply not enough. If you wish to write more than that, your single message is split into a few SMS, and you pay accordingly (i.e. paying MORE). One’s phone bill for any particular month of heavy usage can potentially be extremely expensive, and the 160-limit does not help in any way.

It would not be so bad if SMS were cheaper, and if parents weren’t such sticklers about free SMS limits. Almost all mobile phone plans provide a number of free SMS (i.e. SMS you can send without paying). Exceed that amount, and you pay the balance.

I know of many who find this insufficient. Exceeding this free SMS limit almost always results in punishments dealt out by parental entities. Additionally, if you exceed by a lot, your bill can easily triple. Sending a lot of short messages between two people is one thing, but sending a few longer messages only to incur the same cost tends to irritate.

Hence, many seek to reduce the number of characters they use in a message by shortening words. You have all your typical chat short-forms, like brb and ttyl and lol and wtf, though these aren’t a consequence of wanting to shortening the message. And then you have the deformed words, like tt (that), wld (would), b (be), 4 (for), lyk (like), 2 (to)… These just drive me crazy.

g2g. ttyl. wun b bck 4 dinner.

tt snds lyk it wld b 4 u 2 ans.

u cn owaes typ lyk dis

wtf i m t3h g4y.

Call me inflexible or whatever, but I just cannot stand reading messages that are composed entirely of deformed English words. Needless to say, I do not compose messages containing such horrible English. One other reason, is because I use smart (or T9) input. As a result, I often exceed the 160 character limit before I finish my sentence. It frustrates me to hell.

The 160 character limit is a result of the limitation faced by the messaging protocol in GSM. It is hence a technical restriction, and nothing less than major infrastructural reforms for more advanced technology will improve it.

I hope to talk in greater detail about the technical aspect of it, alternatives, and why we’re stuck with 160 for a long time in part 2.