Talk:Mobile phone/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cleaned up

I made it a little organized, I consolidated all the contraversies on to one part and gave the paragraph on text messaging and blue tooth it's own section 66.115.235.199 01:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

mobile phone culture

I removed the following sentence from culture:

According to a survey conducted by Merryl Lynch in September 2004, subscribers in the US talk 619 minutes a month on their phones.

I think we should have this kind of info in this section. I would like to see a source reference first though so we can check and potentially expand with other related info ChrisUK 21:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Substantial new material to be edited

The following text was pasted into the article. I think that it needs a rewrite and cutting down in order to merge better with the rest of the article. I propose we do it here and paste back in when ready. ChrisUK 6 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

2nd Revision?

How's this?

Though mobile phones vary significantly from provider to provider, and even nation to nation (most noticeably the United States,) all mobile phones must generally accomplish the same tasks regardless. Mobile phones must be connected to the system of landline phones (so that land-line telephones can contact mobile phones, and vice-versa.) Mobile phones must also be able to connect with each other just as easily, even if the two phones are not from the same mobile service provider.

Consequently, all mobile phone systems are (somewhat abstractly,) comprised of two components; the handset, and the tower. The handset is the portable, typically phone-shaped device. The tower is a high-yield radio tower that the mobile phones direct their radio communications to in order to “connect” to the network of telecommunications.

Handsets feature a low power transceiver that is typically designed to transmit either data, or analog audio only up to a few kilometers (under ideal situations,) to where the tower is theoretically located. The handset listens for an available tower. Once found, the handset informs that tower of its own unique identifier, and alerts the mobile phone network that it is ready and standing-by to receive telephone calls. It then periodically repeats this information to the tower, and seeks out new towers over the duration it is powered on.

Towers are large radio towers that feature a series of high power radio transmitters designed to broadcast their presence and availability, and relay communications to the mobile handsets. The tower features a much higher-powered radio transceiver array that allows it to provide a radio communications dialog with handsets dozens of kilometers away (ideally.) The tower is connected to the landline telephone infrastructure by a high-capacity phone line, and may also be connected to a dedicated data line. The tower can then route calls between the mobile handsets its serving, and telephone calls over the landline. Because the tower tracks & relays what mobile handsets it is servicing, it can inform the mobile network provider so that at any given time a call to a mobile phone can quickly be traced to the tower that is servicing that handset.

Most mobile phones dialog between the handset and the tower is comprised of a data stream of digitized audio. The technology driving this process can vary, and in nations with no standard or preference (such as the United States,) many incompatible technologies exist. Not only do transmission standards potentially differ, but so do the radio frequencies. Though nations like the USA have generally avoided official standardization, most nations of the world have agreed upon the GSM data transmission protocol for mobile phones, and a small range of possible frequencies that mobile phones may operate on.

New text

Though mobile phones vary significantly from Telecom Company to Telecom Company, and even nation to nation (most noticeably the United States,) all mobile phones, and the other technologies that support them must generally accomplish the same tasks, regardless of the technology that drives them.

Mobile phones must be connected to the system of land-line phones in order to be not only useful, (so that land-line telephones can contact mobile phones, and vice-versa,) but so that two mobile phones can also connect with each other just as easily.

Consequently, all mobile phone systems are (somewhat abstractly,) comprised of two components; the handset, and the tower.

The handset is the portable, and typcially phone-shaped device. The tower is a high-yield radio tower that the mobile phones direct their radio communications toward for routing to their destination.

The handsets feature a (comparatively) low power transceiver that is typically designed to transmit either digital audio, or analog audio only up to a few kilometers (under ideal situations,) to where the tower is (also ideally) located.

The handset generally seeks out an available tower, informs that tower of its unique identifier, and alerts the mobile phone network that the it is ready and standing-by to receive (and send) telephone calls. It then periodically repeats this information to the tower, as well as seeks out new towers, over the duration it is powered on.

This is called “Stand By,” though no active calls are being made, the phone is simply informing the mobile phone network that it is available. This time is considered to be “standby time” when comparing mobile phone battery lifespan, because the phone does consume power to keep this minimalist “I’m alive” dialog with the mobile phone provider.

Towers are radio towers that feature a series of high power radio transmitters designed to broadcast both their presence and other information the mobile phones can use to determine if it can utilize that tower, as well as the actual conversations and other data.

This is one reason mobile telephone service is considered to be so sporadic in rural areas. Though a tower has the power to broadcast its presence much further than a mobile phone can, the mobile phone might perceive the tower in communications range, but not have enough power to establish a communications dialog with the tower.

In other words; the tower can be heard, but the phone isn’t loud enough to shout back to the tower.

The tower itself is connected to the landline telephone infrastructure by a high-capacity phone line, and may also be connected to a dedicated data line (and/or both depending on the technology.)

The tower can then route calls between the mobile handsets its serving, and telephone calls over the landline. Because the tower tracks what mobile handsets it is servicing, and informs the mobile network provider of this information; at any given time a call to a mobile phone can quickly be traced to the appropriate tower that will broadcast the conversation to the handset.

However, if the handset is not on the network (powered off, out of service area, etc) the call is either routed to voicemail, or otherwise not connected, as that the mobile phone network cannot “find” the handset.

The connection to landlines ensures that a person on a landline can call a mobile number without worrying that the mobile phone is not directly connected to the land-line infrastructure vice-versa; a mobile user needn’t know or care that their mobile phone is only indirectly connected to the landlines; they can just make a phone call.

Towers have a finite capacity, that is to say, there are only so many mobile handsets it can service simultaneously. This limit comes from a wide variety of sources including governmental restrictions on EM communication, technological barriers in communication standards and other technological limitations. These problems are usually resolved by adding more towers (which, through various means negotiate the workload amongst themselves,) to handle more mobile handsets, as well as to expand the geography in which a mobile phone will work.

Echelon

There should be a reference to the Echelon network. helohe 09:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

We do already have ECHELON, which you might be able to add something to. Or, you can be BOLD and add something to this article, but try not to duplicate information that is already elsewhere. -Splash 13:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Commentary on biased research

It is simply not relevant what was added on this subject. The paragraph does not cite any source and is hearsay. In fact, the Mobile Manufacturers Forum applies every year 20 million dollars for funding independent research on the subject. The money is provided with no strings attached by the biggest manufactureres, such as Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc. On this account I have removed the paragraph from this article and added it, in modified form, to the proper article. --R.Sabbatini 22:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

US Penetration

The article states 66% penetration for the US in 2003. This is very misleading, as the US phone companies only count penetration in metropolitan areas. Checking with the CIA World Fact Book verifies this -- even if all cell phones in the US are owned by different people, and none are duplicates or company owned, the figure is at most 55% (using 2003 values for both mobile phones and population). In reality, it's probably lower than 50%. I suggest the article be adjusted by someone who has access to more accurate data.

unhelpful

I suspect this was added by an American user who forgot about the international thing. Could we have some info on legality/feasibility of this in other countries? (oh, and doesn't wiki say that if there is a conflict over americanism/britishism, it's the style of whoever got there first? And mobile phones may not always use cells, but are always mobile...)

" Many users fail to realize that a cell phone is basically a walkie-talkie style radio, with some computers helping along the way. Using a Radio scanner dating to before 1994 (after 1994, it became illegal to sell scanners capable of receiving transmissions in the analog cellular bands (see the end of the summary for US Public Law 102-556[1] for details)) or a modified radio scanner dating to 1996 or 1997, one can typically listen to calls made on old analog cell phones as easy as one can listen to an FM radio. However, newer cell phones use transceivers in the gigahertz range, well above most older scanners. In addition, many (most) cell phones on the market today are backed by many digital type encryption systems."

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)

Article clean up

I have made a number of small and large changes to most of the sections to try and make it more readable. A lot of material has been patched in all over the place and duplicated from other pages. We need to bear in mind that the article should always make sense from begining to end (ie no duplication and no contradictions).

I'm not getting drawn in on the mobile vs cell phone arguement above, suffice to say that whoever did it with a simple search and replace broke all the wiki links to other pages. Hopefully they are all fixed now.

And that section on Technology is complete garbage and out of place in this article. I think it should be moved to cellular networks or GSM or similar where it will have to compete with a much higher standard of writing.

ChrisUK 17:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

bots?

Have changed many 'cell' references to 'mobile', simply because: a) it matches the title b) Someone seems to have set a bot on the article, changing all 'moble phone' phrases to 'cell phone' leading to these oddities.

"mobilny telefon (= cellphone), or mobilnik "

Cellphone : A term covering cellular phones, satellite phones and any phones giving wide ranging mobility, used in most English-speaking countries except the United States."

Other languages

The "terms in other languages" (which is actually about countries, not languages) section doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article, there's Wiktionary for that. PeepP 19:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to bring up something...

Nowadays, cellphones don't only have function(calling somebody), they also have fashion(added tiddbits like games, organizers, whatever). So what's your opinion? Fashion or Function?