Why It's Better to Text Than Call in a Mass Emergency

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Today at BoingBoing, Maggie Koerth-Baker has a fascinating Q&A with communications engineer and entrepreneur Brough Turner about how mobile-phone networks respond to sudden spikes in call volume, as occurred April 15 in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings. Mobile phones are everywhere, but beyond spotting the odd cell tower here and there, few of us understand how they connect up to the rest of the world, and the Turner Q&A does a nice job of breaking down the complex infrastructure in simple terms.

Things have changed a lot since the days when you could see a wire running from your house to a telephone pole—and from there into a visible, tangible network—but many of the same kinds of bottlenecks still exist. In a situation where cell networks are flooded, Turner explains, it’s often easier to communicate with friends or family by text messaging, or SMS (short message service), than via a voice call. Besides, sometimes “I’m OK” is all you need to say. As Turner says:

“Yes. It's much better. The SMS messages have a relatively light footprint, first of all. The second thing is that they're asynchronous. If they can't get through this instant, they keep trying. If it gets over the radio to the cell site, it will get through. Even if it's delayed for 30 seconds or something. With voice you're either connected or you're not, and when you are that means that the traffic channel is tied up until you're done talking. More likely, it means you never get connected because traffic channels are already saturated.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Turner also notes that cell companies transmit SMS messages on a so-called control channel set aside for network operations rather than on one of the channels designated for voice traffic. The control channel is the wireless channel used to set up and disengage a call, so a text message might make it through even when a network’s voice channels are too overloaded to handle additional calls. It’s a bit like being able to drive on the shoulder when the freeway is jammed with traffic.

Initially I wondered if this text benefit applied to iPhones, which use Apple’s iMessage system rather than regular SMS. It appears that it does: according to Apple, iPhones will revert to SMS or MMS (multimedia messaging service) when iMessage is not available. But iPhone users must ensure that the “Send as SMS” setting on their device has not been disabled.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe