Talk:Mobile phone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project as a "full time member" and/or contribute to the discussion.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Mobile phone as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew or Tamil language Wikipedias.

Contents

[edit] Previous talk archives

Discussion page from 25 Feb 2002 to 18 March 2005

Discussion page from 19 March 2005 to 6 November 2005

Discussion page from 06 November 2005 to 4 October 2006 w


[edit] Why is this page semi-protected?

Why is this page semi-protected, and why isn't that fact mentioned anywhere (except in the page history)? - dcljr (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested link: FCC recommended site

FCC recommended site for reporting Cell Phone Co. network deadzones.

As seen on the FCC Site: * http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellcoverage.html CaribDigita 17:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed valid reference link

A link to an item supporting the amount of the child population with mobile phones has been removed. The source was Onecompare - a prominent commentator in the UK press as can be seen from a google search * http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=onecompare&meta=

i.e Comment in Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Mirror etc.

I see this link has been marked as spam by user AB and has been replaced by a link to theregister - an IT news site with seemingly no presence in the mainstream press. This seems to be a calculated attempt to remove a valid link with preference being given to another site of lesser importance.

I have changed the link back to the original and leave this topic open to discussion. AntB


The link you provide is to a commercial site that flogs mobile phones - the register site is an analysis of the survey and a direct link to the survey. I have removed your site and replaced it with the register - I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that the well-know IT news and media site The Register is of "lesser importance" than a company trying to flog mobile phones. AB was correct to do what he did. --Charlesknight 10:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and please sign your posts correctly using either ~~~~ or by clicking the signature button on the toolbar, the version you use goes nowhere. --Charlesknight 11:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Register site is no less commercial than the original site I linked to considering the amount of ad blocks. The Register simply reports news in the way that the section of Onecompare that I linked to does, plus Onecompare is an actual industry commentator - hence the lesser importance comment.

Regardless you have pointed out something useful to me in that there is an original source for the report - therefore I have changed the link to the original report source as this is recommended for Wikipedia.

Oh and thanks for the signing tip! Antb 11:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
  • You're right about my edit summary and I apologize -- I should probably not have used the language "delete sneaky spam link hiding as a footnote" when deleting the link. We've had a lot of problems with spam hiding in footnotes and references and this footnote appeared to meet the profile -- commercial link embedded by an editor using what appeared to be a single purpose account.
  • Having said that, the message I left on your talk page is a Wikipedia-approved template message for a newish user adding links possibly in good faith but that do not meet Wikipedia's policies (Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam). Since very similar sites have been campaign-spammed before, I left you a "General Note" per the warning grid guidance.
  • If I know a user is spamming in bad faith, I call it "spam" in my edit summaries on their talk page. Otherwise, I use an edit summary such as: "Do not add promotional links to external site".
  • This appears to be a very commercial site and other, very experienced editors apparently agree, but I will back out of this discussion and let someone else decide. --A. B. 16:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks A.B. The reason I've only posted on this article os because this is the only one I could help with! All I did was fill a hole where someone was looking for a reference. On the commercial site point I would question that a site that offers it's customers a good deal of aftersales service and campaigns against bad customer service probably doesn't have commercial intentions at the heart of it's operations. I.E a truly commercial site would probably spend that time and money on print advertising etc and just funnel customers around like cattle as long as it provided revenue.

Regardless the original source of the research used has now been found so my original goal of filling in a missing reference has been achieved, no matter how round about the job was done! Antb 19:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent - job done and now back to the Hall of Justice where we can all have a milkshake :) --Charlesknight 19:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is direct copying allowed?

This whole paragraph is plagarized directly from the source it cites:

"Mobile phones have also been identified as a cause of reduced sperm production in men. Microwaves emitted by the phones reduce the number, mobility and quality of sperm by almost half in the heaviest users, to the point where some men may become infertile, scientists say. This could have devastating consequences for fertility rates around the world. Almost a billion people around the world use mobile phones, and the number is growing. Even a small effect on fertility could result in millions of men being rendered childless."

Delete it - it's a copyvio. --Charlesknight 14:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Correct!--Johnhardcastle 11:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cellphone bombs

Could somebody please talk about this? In the Philippines, Cellphones are used as bomb detonators. This could be added in the controversy page because of the wide scope of usage of cellphones and their role in bombings.

amelia h-h rox

[edit] Cell Phones

Which counrty has the highest penetration of cell phones ? In one source it said Iceland, another said Hong Kong and Wikipedia says Luxembourg, so which one is it?

Penetration? Exqueeze me?

[edit] Manufacturer list?

T-Mobile is a phone manufacturer? Also that list seems to list some rather unknown, and probably small manufacturers as "the world's largest". X570 01:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

T-Mobile most definitely does not manufacture the phones sold under their brand. Most all of them have been made by HTC and rebranded for sale through T-Mobile. – Fʀijølɛ ( tɐlk • ¢ʘɴ†ʀiβs ) 04:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of Danger at Gas Pumps

I corrected a few misspellings and poor grammar in this section, but the grammar throughout the section is poor. It reads like something thrown together in haste instead of being carefully thought through. I don't have time to clean it up, but an overall cleanup would be a good idea. Gschrive87 15:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CDMA/GSM

Why is CDMA listed as an alternative to GSM? CDMA isn't a cell phone network standard, it's a multiplexer standard that can be used for almost any type of data transmission. 193.11.202.125 22:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use while driving

"While few jurisdictions have banned motorists from using cell phones while driving outright"

- this surely needs some kind of adjusting as mobile/cell phone use while driving is illegal outright in Enland (and, I believe, the rest of the United Kingdom): http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_025216.hcsp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.81.240.93 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

If the UK is the only country in the world that has banned talking on the phone while driving outright, I'd still say the sentence is accurate. Are there any other countries that allow no phone use by drivers at all? hajhouse 21:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Acutally I just read the source listed about about England, and it states that cell phones are not banned outright while driving, only handheld cellphones. If any one knows of a place where drivers are completely absolutely forbidden to use cell phones (without a handsfree exception) please edit it in. hajhouse 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I've heard of people being stopped in Costa Rica for talking on the phone ... I'll check on Central and South American countries and their rules when I catch a minute. 21:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brain cancer again

Anybody seen this:[1] It looks like there might be another study coming out we should probably look at. Keep an ear out for any news;) --Dematt 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Should the section on cancer be expanded? It only really represents the findings of one study, despite the numerous conflicting studies out there. Someone reading the article will come away with a definitive "no" when that sort of census hasn't been reached. Onikage725 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Cell phone science is in its infancy. Thank you. Ilena 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
This one looks worthy of researching further. Study Details Mobile Phone Dangers. Has this one been discussed yet? Shalom. Ilena 21:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Another from my archives to chew on. Mobile phones tumour risk to young children. Thank you. Ilena 21:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please review ... Very good video

http://www.safewireless.org/ Ilena 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I didn't expect all the recent edits to be vandalism, or reversions :) I guess I don't check the history of popular pages often enough :) Mathiastck 11:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cell Phone Interference/"Speaker Buzz"

I'm surprised I'm unable to find any information on the above subjects, perhaps its somewhere that I as unable to find? I did a pretty thorough search however and I'd imagine this is the appropriate page for such topics to be mentioned.

[edit] New Law in Britain

Use a mobile... and lose your vehicle Ilena 21:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Brain Cancer?!

Is it just me or does it seem like the section on brain cancer should be near the bottom.. Not the first item (after background)? I mean wikipedia articals should probably reflect the MOST important attributes first. Risk of brain cancer is clearly low on most people priority list given the number of people using cell phones. The top one should probably be technology or something...Duncan St. Ives 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)aa

[edit] Brain Cancer contradiction

Ref nine, used to cite the idea that cell-phone users who started after 1995 wern't counted in the brain cancer study by the national cancel assocation, contradicts the earlier sources which say the study concluded that there was a health risk, even though this part of ref nine isn't used. (The first two refs consist of what appears to be a blog and some personal health person's website) Ref nine seems to think that a study by the exact same institute concluded that the opposite was true more or less, and that there was nothing to worry about. This seems quite peculier. Homestarmy 19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, the blog looking cite was just being cited falsly, and also says the same study found no link. I've corrected it, might want to watch out for vandalism like that in the future if it happens. Homestarmy 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] India unmentioned

The fastest growing market for cell phones is India. Adding more than 6 million users per month and telecom giants like Vodafone plunging in to claim there share. This has to find a mention on the page. apurv1980 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] A separate article for Mobile Communication

I believe mobile communication should be another separate article, rather than redirecting to this article. Mobile phone technology and mobile communication technolgy are certainly different. If too much objections won't come, I'll add a separate Mobile Communication page. --Anoopkn 08:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article suggestion: Mobile phone location and tapping

See Talk:Telephone tapping#Merge (and split) suggestion for details. `'mikka 20:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Europe is not a country

The Features paragraph should be rephrased, as Europe and Australia are not countries.

In most countries, including Europe, Japan, Pakistan, Australia, Chile, Colombia, India,[11] Maldives and Israel the person receiving a mobile phone call pays nothing.

What's Australia calling itself these days? I guess I haven't kept up. --Fru1tbat 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
My bad :) --212.62.54.166 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Driving

I've tried to improve the section on driving [2]. I don't really see any need to list all the US States which currently have driving bans. This sort of detail is best left for the main article. And the section on the UK giving a detail explaination of the fine inccured was unnecessary. Also the section on Europe may be misleading as the main article suggests France, the Czech Republic and Netherlands at least don't actually have bans (although as neither was referenced I don't know which one is correct). It also sounded funny (all European countries except e.g. Sweden). I'm not 100% happy with the way things sound at the moment so feel free to try and improve it but remember to keep it concise. Nil Einne 13:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gallery of notable phones ???

I only recognize half of them, what makes these in particular notable? I think it should just be removed altogether, the gallery doesn't really add anything to the article, there are already pictures of phones further up Kalleboo 21:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of first mobile phone call

This article says that "Cooper made the first call on a handheld mobile phone on April 3, 1973." However, the 1973 article makes no mention of this event. According to the article 1972, the date was April 3, 1972. And the article April 3 says that it was April 3, 1973. Obviously two of these four articles are incorrect. Can someone knowledgeable with mobile phone history please clarify if the correct year is 1972 or 1973? --Miken2005 19:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/b/Talk%7EMobile_phone_5056.html"