Talk:Mobile phone/Archive 3

Spelling on miracel and telphone
I'm changing these to miracle and telephone respectively. Seeing as I didn't do the translation I can't be positive. Feel free to remove this upon confirmation.

Features
Are there still any models with PTT?

Generations
The article refers to 0G, 1G, 2G and 3G as (for example) '0G generation'. Doesn't that literally mean 0th generation generation? It's like writing hdd drive...

Doing it the right way!
I would like to add these external links to this article - can I get a decision on this from someone please?


 * www.moneysavingexpert.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?newsid1122310650,23242, Full guide to getting the cheapest mobile phone bill in the UK
 * www.onecompare.com/ Site to compare all UK mobile phone and tariff prices

Last time the links I added were mistaken for spam (you can see the somments under consensus please below, however they were intended as very useful links on the subject, as you can see I explained in my talk page talk page. If I've done this wrong again or my links don't work, please let me know!

Reversion
I just reverted the article to the last version (as far as I can tell) without vandalism. Please do not hesitate to correct me if wrong, as I am still a clueless newbie Julie C. Chang 08:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
I think there was some vandalism in the article entry, with substitution of some words like text for sex, and other expletives. Haven't made any changes, since not sure of some of the correct vandalised terms.

"number of cellphone stuff you subscribers in the US has reached over 190 million." Without global figures, or figures for other countries, this seems strangely out of place, particularly where it is. I'm removing it, but recording it here so it can be reinserted where appropriate, if necessary.

Consensus please

 * www.onecompare.com/mobilephonetariffs/comparetariffs.asp Compare all the UK mobile phone tariffs here
 * www.onecompare.com/mobilephonejargonbuster.asp Get an explanation of mobile phone jargon here

Are these spam? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 57.66.51.165 (talk &bull; contribs) 17:44, 15 December 2005.
 * Yes - good call. And thanks for also following up with a warning on the User's talk page. -- Solipsist 16:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And do these belong in the external links?
 * www.howardforums.com/ Howard Forums Forums for cell phone professionals
 * www.cellphonehacks.com/ CellPhoneHacks Mobile phone forum for beginners to experts
 * cellwatch.blogspot.com/ Cell Watch Cell phone trends
 * www.gsmprofile.com/gsm-manual.php GSM Phone Manuals All kind of GSM Phone Manuals


 * I've put HowardForums back because it is a wealth of technical infomation on mobiles (Threads: 776,123, Posts: 6,217,996, Members: 366,659, Currently Active Users: 5234). Also removed wiki.ehow.com/Make-a-Smart-Car-Surveillance-System-Using-a-Mobile-Phone Smart Car Surveillance System- has anyone actually read that link? It is very silly DIY project--PTSE 00:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

How about a link to this white paper on multiple cell phone use in the U.S.: Thekohser 05:17, 02 May 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.icrsurvey.com/docs/Multiple%20cell%20phone%20report%204_11_06.doc Growth of multiple cell phone ownership
 * Yes - I think that's an appropriate reference item. MyWikiBiz 16:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mobile telephone
Shouldn't the title of the article be Mobile telephone, as phone is an abbreviation of telephone? Cacophony 02:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Only if you're the sort of person who still says "violoncello". --UrbaneLegend 00:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the violincello.. Jellocube27 23:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Japanphone
I've heard Japan in '79 had the first cellphone 'net. Can somebody confirm? Trekphiler 00:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * History of mobile phones would probably be a better place to inquire, but the article is lacking that info. I'll go add to it right now. Cacophony 01:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sweden had it in 1959

Terrorist Threat
Thought I'd bring this up. Terrorists have been suspected of using disposable cell phones being untrackable and then being thrown away when they're done with them.
 * There is no such thing as an untrackable, or disposable cell phone. Maybe you mean they use one-time pre-paid calling plans? Cell phones are inherently less secure than "land lines".  You will never, ever see the U.S. President talking on any type of mobile telephone.   Cacophony 05:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. equivalent of "mobile phone" is "cell phone"
I wanted to get consensus on my edit of the main "also known as" term for a mobile phone to be cell phone, as opposed to cellular phone. While I agree with Cacophony that "This article needs more reference to "cellular", not less", I disagree that "Cellular phone was the most common usage for the first 20 years of their existance, and it is most correct". The opening sentence should state what the general population calls the subject of the article, not the root words which are not in common use. If one were to apply his logic that the unabbreviated term "is most correct," then the two main terms of the article subject would have to be "mobile telephone" and "cellular telephone", which certainly are not in common usage. However, working for a cellular company, I understand and agree with his point that people reading this article should know what "cell" is an abbreviation of, so I put "cellular phone" in parentheses and also changed "via a network of base stations" to "via a cellular network of base stations". What do other people think? --DylanW 06:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! I can see your point, but I removed the cellular phone in brackets because it looks like a list forming again. Cellular gets explained quite quickly in the article, so I don't think it will cause confusion. But obviously this is just my view. I think we need to avoid adding too many terms in the first couple of sentences, since that can be confusing. They can get explained and listed further down. User:57.66.51.165:57.66.51.165 09:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, you put it back to what I originally changed it to!! Here is where someone had changed "cell phone," to "cellular phone (cell phone)," with no explanation and I changed it back.  And here is where someone changed it back again with an incorrect explanation.  I then just tried to compromise, which is why I put the "cellular phone" in parentheses.  The way it is now makes the most sense—you never hear anyone saying "cellular phone". --DylanW 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the more common term, worldwide? In North America it is cellphone, no one would know what you were talking about if you said "mobile phone," or as seems more common in the UK, just "mobile" (which is a thing that hangs above a baby's crib, and not a phone). This encyclopedia has a definite UK bias. 70.50.54.137 12:57, January 30, 2006 (UTC)


 * From the archives
 * Rename?
 * I move that this page be renamed "Cellular phone." A much larger portion of the Anglophone world
 * calls it that than "Mobile phone." Also, cellular is more specific. Many types of phones
 * are "mobile" (i.e., the page's own admonition against cordless phones), where as no one
 * gets confused as to the meaning of "cellular." I know Americans are evil and all, but I think
 * Wikipedia should stick to the most commonly used terminology barring a clear argument against that.
 * Cellular phone already redirects here. Raw numbers of speakers is less important than geographical
 * spread, and my understanding is that Europe, Canada and Australia (at the least)
 * refer to "mobile". There is not any actual ambiguity over meaning really since the phrase
 * has no other meaning that is ever used. In any case, with a redirect already pointing here,
 * there's not much need to move it. -Splash 01:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Canada, US and South Africa use "cell phone." These constitute a MUCH larger geographical spread
 * than UK, Ireland, Australia and NZ, where they use mobile phone. However, apparently, India
 * also uses this terminology (for those Indians who speak English). Thus my popular usage
 * argument is probably defeated, although, interestingly, by the above argument the page
 * should still be changed to Cellular phone, as a much larger geographical area uses it. Not a
 * big deal either way, just trying to be specific.
 * RiseAbove 07:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy is that if there is a dispute over dialect, you go with what's there already. And I could make the case for cell phones all being mobile, but not all potential mobile phones being cellular :-). ps, most British people just call them phones nowadays. 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (Skittle)


 * I was just over there, and it seemed everyone still calls them "mobiles." A mobile is something that hangs above a baby's crib, and calling a phone that is just ridiculous. I hate cellphones anyway, but call them what they are. 70.49.241.146 20:00, January 31, 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care either way, but Merriam-Webster agrees with you. By the way, the mobile that hangs over a baby's crib is pronounced differently than the mobile in England. (I was just over there too, and you're right, that's what they call them.) --DylanW 21:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am over there, and we mostly call them 'phones'. Usually use 'mobile' only if a distinction needs to be made between them and a landline. If it's necessary to distinguish them from landlines, you would say 'mobile' or 'mobile phone', but usually it's obvious and one just says 'phone'. And some people sound like they're being a leeetle dogmatic about language. "A mobile is something that hangs above a baby's crib, and calling a phone that is just ridiculous." I could equally say "Pants are something you wear under the rest of your clothes, and calling trousers that is just ridiculous." Or "An ass is a type of animal, and calling your arse that, and thinking it rude, is just ridiculous.", but these would be silly statements showing a lack of liguistic understanding. And this encyclopedia doesn't have a UK bias, it has less of a US bias than you are used to in US media, just as it has less of a UK bias than UK media. You just notice the UK stuff because you're not used to it.10:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (Skittle)


 * Makes sense. --DylanW 18:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense. The guy's not from over there, he's just fucking with you.  What a dolt.  "A lack of linguistic understanding"!  Ha ha ha!  What an idiot!  If he is English, it's no wonder it's so easy to make fun of those wimps!  Ha ha ha!
 * How peculiar. Out of interest, are you Tenebrea (or however you spell it)? And I'd recommend an IP locator, except IP2 seems to put me in France (and you in Ontario?), plus you don't seem to be especially reasonable.Skittle 11:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The IP address doesn't necessarily tell you anything. A person could visiting a place and using a friend's computer, or a public computer, and could be from somewhere else.  I get a kick out of guys who accuse other people of ignorance, but then give no reason why they, of course, should be believed and trusted - especially when they don't bother to write a well-reasoned, persuasive argument (either to tear down the other guy or to support their own position).

The name should be changed to "cellphone". 90% of the World seems to use "cellphone" ... "mobile phone" is UK-biased ....... --AF (22/6/06)


 * No. You'll see that this was discussed earlier. Anyway, I'm from the UK too and I don't know what skittle is talking about, because I, and everybody I know, says "mobile". We call landlines "phones". MichaelJBuck 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Links
I may have done something stupid with the links, but I can't check which is the best since I can't access either site from here. Could someone check the link I reverted today and determine what is at each location, hopefully providing feedback here? My apologies if I reverted a good change. 57.66.51.165 13:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (Skittle)

Buyers Guide OK to add in the links?
Hello,

I have written a mobile phone buyers guide, aimed at UK buyers. Would it be acceptable to add this to the external links section on this page? www.mad4mobilephones.com/mobilephonebuyersguide.php3

If there are any suggestions to improve the guide I could update it.
 * I'd say no. What little content there is can probably be put into Wikipedia articles, and there are far too many affiliate links for you to be promoting it here. See (WP:EL) links to normally avoid - numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. There are plenty of links at dmoz, and I think that would be the better place for your link and all the other links to all the other guides. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cell Phone problem
I have a problem with my cell phone -- one it was fine and the next minute the screen appeared all dis-colored and glitchy. It seems to be a permanent problem because it won't go away, and I believe it made a cracking sound because it was sat on -- but that may or may not be the problem. Does anybody know what it is? And if it's fixable, is it possible to transfer the data on the bad cell phone from the bad cell phone to a new cell phone?

Here are pictures of it:



-- Hz12kmblt 12:59, 18 Apr 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not too sure what phone it is you have there but I think from experience that the display in your phone has leaked or cracked. Getting the screen r

eplaced should be pretty easy, just contact the manufacturer for a list of local repair shops or even ask at any major phone store. You should be ably to keep your data.--82.163.123.98 09:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cell Phone while driving
In Israel it is allowed to use a cell phone while driving, given that it's in a hands free cradle or attached to a head set. Please amend accordingly. 24.80.49.112 09:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * not true look at
 * As an Israeli I can tell you that it is true - the link is wrong. Odedee 18:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He's right, the link is wrong-- it says it is illigal in my state, while it is legal to use a hands-free thingermabobber.

Removed URL Cell Phone Recycling
I removed the link to Cell Phone Recycling for Charities. I don't see any any reason why it should be in the article. If anyone wants to put it back, please put it under External Links, not "See also."
 * www.recyclingforcharities dot com: "Cell Phone Recycling for Charities"

Thanks for understanding. Cheers --Starionwolf 00:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Frequent spammer. I edited your entry above so it does not provide a Google hit for this site.--A. B. 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mobile phone comparison tool
Added link to software that compares current model mobile phones by brand and feature.
 * 

Charging for Incoming Calls
I have just discovered that in the US you are charged for incoming calls as well as calls you make! I found this on an earlier thread.

" Charging for Incoming calls (Note: The question below is copied from the archived Talk section for convenience; hence the past date in Steggall's comments.)

In Canada and the United States, it is common practise to charge a mobile phone user for both the outgoing AND incoming usage of his phone. So, a Canadian or US mobile phone user actually pays for a call when he answers one made to his phone, as well as when he makes a call from his phone. Additionally, most mobile phone services will require new users to sign a contract promising them a minimum time period with which they will continue to be their customer (usually 12 to 24 months). If a person wishes to terminate service before the end of the contract, a cancellation penalty applies, which can be as much as paying off the remaining time left on the contract. It should be noted that once a person has been with a mobile phone provider for the initial contract period, they are usually not required to sign another contract to continue using them. If, at that time, they decide to switch to another provider, they will usually have to sign another contract promising to stay with that provider for a minimum period.

I know that charging for incoming calls is not universal. What about requiiring a minimum period of use? Is that the norm in other countries?

Take note that I'm talking about "the norm". I'm sure that there are providers that don't require a contract and some that may not charge for some incoming calls. But the vast majority do charge for incoming calls, and most providers do require a contract (or else charge much higher rates for their calls). Steggall Date: 21 Feb 2005, 13:45 (UTC)

I'm British, and have had a pay-as-you-go (ie non-contract) mobile phone for about five years now, and have never had to pay for incoming calls. As far as I'm aware, no mobiles in the UK ever charge for incoming calls these days, and they haven't done so in for a very long time now. I was amazed (and that's not too strong a word) to discover that a Canadian friend (with a contract phone, moreover) still had to pay to receive calls; any operator that tried that in the UK would be out of business in a flash. As for contracts, some people have them and some don't, but non-contract phones are very, very common; you can get a simple one (but still with voicemail and SMS, both of which are considered absolutely basic features) for around £30 (about US$55 at current exchange rates) in Tesco. Loganberry (Talk) 17:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC) "

I am also British and have never had this, which is, I feel, just plain wrong. The mobile phone company is being paid twice. By the way, in the US you also pay for receiving text messages, and your minutes expire after a set time, minutes that you have paid for. All of this is incredible to me, in Britain you only pay for calls you make and texts you send and prepaid minutes you buy don't expire until you use them, why would they - you paid for them. Ok in the grand scheme of things it's a minor inconvenience but it's still wrong.

I beleive paying for incoming calls is unique to the US and China and Canada. Why has this been allowed to happen? And why is it continuing? GC 07:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

–—There may be more to it than this, but in the US, there was almost universal landline phone service when wireless arrived. This landline service is generally at a flat rate for unlimited local calling, and is on a calling party pays basis (ie., same as wireless in most parts of the world). However, until recently, and particularly years ago when wireless showed up, wireless was far more expensive than landline. Therefore, to avoid billing surprises to a landline caller who might be calling someone on a cell phone, it was decided that the mobile party would pay for all calls from/to a cell phone. Netboyak 01:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)netboyak
 * Don't forget that the decision is symptomatic of a poor numbering scheme. All UK landline number begin "01" or "02" and local numbers don't require the area code to be dialed. All UK mobile numbers have begun "03" to "07" in their time (now settled on "07"), thus are immediately distinguishable from landline numbers and are never in the same area code as a landline. In contrast, the US didn't bother reserving seperate, easily distinguished area codes for mobile numbers, hence the extra undesirable expense for mobile phone owners. 195.173.23.111 10:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds about right. The other advantage is that telemarketing to cell phones is rare, because the annoyance and per-minute financial burden to cell phone users is much easier to prove, which in turn translates into monetary damages, which then attracts class action attorneys.  Plus nearly all attorneys use cell phones and therefore could become potential class representatives themselves!  So most telemarketers are smart and they keep away from cell phone numbers.  --Coolcaesar 06:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Future
This seems a odd section - a combination of OR,wishlist and future gazing (some of which I'm sure will be correct but should it be here?).

--Charlesknight 09:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mi casa huele a pata hedionda
Mientras yo se que ustedes, mis queridos amigos hablan espanol, yo no. Yo naci en Panama y ese es mi idioma asi que les voy a hablar de lo que me sucedio el otro dia. Pero se los voy a tener que contar en espanol.

Un dia iba yo caminando muy tranquilo de mi cama. Ese dia estaba yo enfermo, entonces se me hacia muy dificil respirar por la nariz. Como yo tenia ese problema en ese momento, no podia saber lo mal que olian mis medias, ya que no las habia labado en un largo tiempo (me refiero a tres meses). Bueno, siguiendo con el tema, vengo yo a comer algo pues la verdad me estaba muriendo de hambre. Lo que sucedio fue muy extrano pues cuando fui al refrigerador no habia nada de comer entonces me dirigi a la mesa para comerme el delicioso pavo del Dia de Gracias. Cuando me dirigia hacia la mesa me imaginaba que mi pavo ya estaba podrido. Pero lo que note fue muy gracioso.

En ese momento yo ya estaba decidido que no iba a comer pavo esa noche, pero en el momento que fui a ver el pavo, se veia ezquicito. Estaba tostado por fuera, bien calientito y listo para comer. Cuando estaba a punto de comer un pedaso, note que habia un poco de leche a mi lado. La lehce habia estado ahi hace mucho tiempo, lo suficiente para que estubiera rancia. Pero al contrario, la leche estaba de lo mas limpia.

Bueno, para no cansarlos con la historia, me comi el pavo y me tome la leche. Luego me fui a dormir. Si bien lo recuerdo, esa noche dormi como un bebe. La verdad, yo estaba muy satisfecho con mi comida.

Al siguiente dia, me levante de lo mas bien. Ya podia respirar bien, un gran sol me saludaba desde lo lejos y lo mejor de todo es que mi pancita estaba satisfecha. Cuando me levante de mi cama para ir a desayunar, me di cuenta que habia un olor espantoso en la casa. Me preguntaba de donde llegaba ese olor pero no tenia ni la menor idea de donde venia. Luego, cuando me estaba banando, me quite mi medias... QUE OLOR MAS FEO! Me estaba muriendo de ese olor. no aguantaba mas. Esa era la razon porque mi pavo no tenia ni una sola mosca. Solo podia ser una cosa... MI CASA OLIA A PATA HEDIONDA!

Bueno desde ese dia me bano todos los dias. Bueno amigos, este es el fin de mi historia.

Moraleja: banarse todos los dias...