Log in

No account? Create an account
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2010-06-14 16:18
Subject: [process] A primer on text messaging, for those what wants it
Security: Public
Tags:child, process, tech, writing
I was asked for my opinions on some text messaging dialog in a story, because the writer didn't personally use SMS and wasn't sure about the details. As it happens, I do a lot of work with commercial text messaging at the Day Jobbe, so I rather over-answered the question. I've turned that answer into a blog post, intended for the reference of writers who may not be particularly familiar with texting or want some of the nuts and bolts.

(Surely there are one or two of you out there who don't text?)

Technical details

A text message is a communication between two cellular telephones (or something spoofing as a cellular phone), or between a commercial sender and a cellular phone. This means you don't see a sender identified per se on a text message, or some equivalent of Caller ID. What you will see on a text message is the originating phone number (ie, 8885551212) in the case of another phone, or in the case of a commercial message, a five- or six-digit code that functions as a phone number equivalent, though they are undialable.

Most phones check the originating number against the internal address book and supply whatever name is in the address book. So, if I send you a message, and you don't have me in your phone directory, all you'll see is the originating number. Which you may or may not recognize, depending on how frequently we communicate.

If you have me in your phone directory under a nickname, say "clownfeet", that's what will show as the sender. It would only have my name if your directory had my name. Likewise, I could send the same message to you, then to someone else, and you might each see a different sender based on how you do (or don't) have me listed in your phone's directory.

The narrow technical way of looking at this is the text messages move via a protocol called "SMPP", which is in a sense roughly analogous to email's SMTP protocol, where the sender ID is always the originating cell phone number (or commercial short code). In email, a name field is usually associated with the actual address, so you'll see things like this:

"Jay Lake" <jlake@jlake.com>

But there is no name field in SMPP, just the originating number — it's a very stripped down protocol.

In other words, the header on the message will not state who it is from, it will only state the originating phone number. However, the user's phone will do a best-effort to provide a sender name if one is available in the internal address book.

Possibly sources of confusion from this analysis include:

1) Someone else picks up the sending phone and uses it. the_child occasionally texts from either my phone or her mother's, but the recipient has no way to know that it is her sending the message instead of the phone's owner, unless she identifies herself within the message body. Or from context, of course. In story terms as in real life, this leaves many opportunities for social engineering if someone is careless with their cell phone, or has misplaced their trust in an associate.

2) All the major carriers operate email gateways, so you can send me a text at 8885551212@mobile.att.net, for example. [Not my real number, obviously.] This has a tendency to munge the sender ID in the header, as the message is not originating from another cell phone and the gateways are not especially sophisticated. This is true even if the message was emailed from another cell phone's email client or Web browser, the point being it arrived on the carrier network via SMTP rather than SMPP, and was translated by the gateway. So it's possible to have legitimate messages from a known sender with munged headers, resulting in no intelligible sender information. In story terms, one might use this method to spoof the source of the message, for example, by relying on the obscuring effect of the gateway.

3) It is also possible under some circumstances for a bad actor to spoof either the header or the entire message. This takes a lot of know-how, some special equipment and a willingness to commit felonies under Federal law. For virtually all ordinary purposes, this can be disregarded, but be aware it can be done. Mostly only fraud management and security types care about this, given that there can be a presumption of identification associate with cell phone use, that occasionally plays into dual-factor security regimes. The story applications of this should be obvious.

Grammar, spelling and punctuation in text messages

There's a tendency to assume that punctuation and whatnot is optional in text. Experience certainly might suggest that. But the protocol is content-agnostic, meaning you can send any punctuation you want. There's a habit, especially among teens and young adults, of leaving punctuation out, but that's a cultural/social marker, not inherent in the mechanics of texting. Note, however, on an older phone or dumbphone with no keyboard capability, the tediousness of multi-tap entry can drive even language pedants to such shortcuts.

Most of what we do see as text messaging usage derives from leetspeek. Wiki explains it much better than I can, but it's very much worth paying attention to this if you're using text messaging as in-story dialog. This becomes an issue of character speech register and dialect, just like any other form of dialog. For example, the_child's texts tend to use a lot of shortcuts, mine tend to be fully spelled out with no abbreviations, though I've been known to skimp on the punctuation.

Note also that there's a 140-character limit to text messages which tends to inflect some people's use of abbreviations, even those who by generational cohort or social self-selection might normally not do so.

The key point here is that the diction is in fact independent of the technology, and is largely derived from online chat, chatrooms, etc. As such, it is very dependent on the demographics and psychographics of the user.

If that was of interest to you and raises further questions, or you want a deeper dive into the technical and business side for some reason, as always please feel free to ask away in comments.

Post A Comment | 36 Comments | | Flag | Link

User: ebonypearl
Date: 2010-06-14 23:32 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Thank you. I am one of the ones who doesn't text message.
Reply | Thread | Link

(no subject) - (Anonymous)
ubiquitous_a: WW-badwriting
User: ubiquitous_a
Date: 2010-06-15 00:08 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I've been a texter for quite some time, but my friends make fun of me (in a good way) because I completely spell everything out and use correct punctuation, capital letters where appropriate, etc. ;)

Personally, I think this is a good habit to have. ;p
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: melissajm
Date: 2010-06-15 00:19 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I've never texted.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: joycemocha
Date: 2010-06-15 01:10 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Me neither. I want a keyboard phone first.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
Renegade Vagabond
User: khaybee
Date: 2010-06-15 00:29 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Just a little note on regionalism. In some cultures, texts are a major method of communication and calling with the phone is rare. New Zealand is one such place. Texts are the social norm and calling (averaging about 90 cents per minute) is usually considered extravagant. Many fewer people avoid texting in this situation.
Reply | Thread | Link

russ: lyles constant
User: goulo
Date: 2010-06-15 07:07 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:lyles constant
Yes, same in Poland and I believe many countries, since text costs less to send than voice. It is bizarre to me that it's apparently typical in the US that texting costs more than voice calling. Given the trivial amount of information in a text message (e.g. 10 or 20 bytes) versus the huge amount of information in a digitized continuous voice conversation (who knows how many dozens or hundreds of kilobytes), the voice calls should cost more.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link | Expand

User: threeoutside
Date: 2010-06-15 01:28 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I *have* texted, but I don't. I don't see any purpose to it in my life. Nor Twitter nor FB. Just FYI.

I wonder if someday someone will excavate your treatise there, and use it to do the future's equivalent of steampunkery for a story about us Elder Ones...?
Reply | Thread | Link

User: dsgood
Date: 2010-06-15 03:55 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
One thing I find Twitter useful for is news. Many newspapers, magazines, tv stations, etc. send Twitter messages with a short synopsis of what the particular news story is, and a link to their website.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

Elf M. Sternberg
User: elfs
Date: 2010-06-15 01:54 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Wow. That was sufficiently educational that it deserved avoiding Usenet Nod Syndrome. Thanks!
Reply | Thread | Link

User: jere7my
Date: 2010-06-15 02:41 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Thank you! But isn't the SMS character limit 160? (It's 140 for Twitter, because Twitter steals 20 characters for its own nefarious purposes.)
Reply | Thread | Link

User: mastadge
Date: 2010-06-15 04:01 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
On my phone it's 160.

I am among those who spell out words and punctuate sentences and all that.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: cithra
Date: 2010-06-15 02:54 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Some text orthography is held over (or parallel evolution) from TTY/hearing-impaired telephony usage. An ASL interpreter friend of mine used to email me using common substitutions like R for are back in the 1990s, well before SMS on cell phones became standard issue. It always stood out and grated horribly on my ear at the time, although over the years I've gotten more used to it.
Reply | Thread | Link

russ: lyles constant
User: goulo
Date: 2010-06-15 07:16 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:lyles constant
These kinds of annoying compressed abbreviations and l337-5pe@k has also been used on custom/vanity automobile license plates for quite a long time.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

shelly_rae: Big leaf Maple
User: shelly_rae
Date: 2010-06-15 05:52 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Big leaf Maple
::Taps the screen impatiently::
Like, you totally 4got the use of double colons--of course that could be because you only have a semi-colon.
Yes I can haz stolen joke.
But I is old WELL user and texting is sorta like that, only different. Non?
Reply | Thread | Link

Sean P. Fodera
User: delkytlar
Date: 2010-06-15 14:50 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I've never texted, and never will. It's amazing how many people cannot respect the fact that my phone plan does not include any texting, and they fail to respect my requests that they not text me, as texts eat up my cell minutes (approx. 10-15 minutes per text received, depending on time of day), and they will absolutely not get a response, other than my enmity.

Texting is a rude, anti-social behavior. Don't join me for a meal, and spend any amount of time tapping away at your phone (I can understand taking a call, but not texting in social situations). I watch my daughter's friends at parties, all texting away, while sitting together in a group that supposedly wants to be together for the guest of honor. If people want to communicate with me when I'm away from home, they can call me, and actually engage in conversation. Not send me a one-way, one-sided, mis-spelled, poorly punctuated text message. Texting is just a nasty, despicable technology.
Reply | Thread | Link

Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2010-06-15 14:53 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Texting is just a nasty, despicable technology.

I respect your viewpoint, and even to some degree agree with you, but I submit that like most technologies, texting per se is value-neutral. Seems to me it's the variable (and unstable) social norms around the technology to which you are objecting, not the technology itself. Bad behavior is bad behavior regardless of the enabling platform.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link | Expand

(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
my journal
January 2014
2012 appearances