Talk:Mobile phone/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Multifunctional Mobile Device

The merging of Information and Communication Technologies, and developments in Digital Media created an exciting new technological era. It can be questioned if 'Cell Phone' is still the appropriate to use for the latest devices, as it may become more appropriate to refer to it as Multifunctional Mobile Devices (MFMD’s). Manufacturers are aiming to merge many devices such as cameras, radios, music players, navigation aids, temperature sensors, calculators, modems, contact management systems, etc. into their Cell Phones. It can be referred to it as the Gadget Attraction Factor (GAF), whereby Cell Phone Manufacturers aim to hook a larger market share by incorporating other digital devices or functions into their Cell Phones.

E-mail along with the Portable Document Format (PDF) have already replaced Faxes to a large extend, Internet Relay Chat (IRC) is fast gaining in popularity over Short Message Systems (SMS), while Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is also gaining momentum over the more expensive but more reliable Telephone or Cell Phone calls.

It however seem that Cell Phone Manufacturers have opted for GAF and in the process they may lose sight of the communication requirements of a large market segment, thus leaving a barrier between fixed line (DECT, DSL, ADSL, etc.) and mobile network technologies (GSM, 3GSM, 4GSM, UMTS, CDMA, etc), not to mention Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and connectivity with Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN). Does the market essentially require communication devices or a combo electronic gadget and what appeals to which markets? It remains to be seen if Cell Phones would essentially remain a communication device, or merely become MFMD's. It however is doubtful if the term 'Cell Phone' is appropriate for the latest devices. --AmpleTech (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I found a pretty good resource on cell phones which doesn't appear to be a shill for a cell phone company or provider. They seem genuinely informative and helpful (and no, I don't work for them - lol). The site is: www.cellphoneinfo.com. Could someone else take a look at the site and confirm its usefulness? i'd like to add it as an external source. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cell phones create radiation. Radiation can easily give you brain cancer so if using a phone then your increasing your chances of getting cancer of the brain.If your driving and talking on a hand held phone you bound to crash so dont do that and it's agingst the law. Buses and trains and elevators create a lot of radiation with a cell phone becuase they are made of metal

I have a concern with the sentence in bold: "Study of the University of Segeda, Hungary showed that mobile phones carried in pockets of pants and/or worn on belts could result in loss of quantity and quality of active sperm cells by men. This fact may not be true, especially in wealthier countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia." (http://www.infoniac.com/health-fitness/cellphones-kill-sperm-study-says.html) That claim does not exist at all in the linked source. So where does it come from? Was it made up? I feel such a claim deserves a source. This is why I decided to remove the sentence. If this claim is true I hope someone will find a accurate source and re-insert the sentence. —Swingout (talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Etiquette - petrol stations

As far as I know, the "reason" for prohibition at petrol filling stations, at least in UK, is claimed to be risk of electrical discharge/ short circuit, i.e. generation of a static spark, even though there has never been any report ever of such an occurrence having any safety implications. I am unsure, however, if this prohibiton is enshrined in UK law (as the lower age limit for dispensing fuel is) or is merely seen as "good practice" on the part of the petrol retail companies. Perhaps someone could offer a definitive view and/or real evidence from the perspective of UK Health and Safety legislation? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

supercategory wireless or mobile

There is a discussion to merge one wireless category into another. I'd prefer all wireless categories to be children of the Mobile category. This seems to be the place to discuss. Mathiastck (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not up to date with this debate, but I am wondering how 'wireless phones', that is, fixed (not mobile) phones that connect wirelessly. I'm not confusing them with cordless phones, which simply have a cordless handset, but still connect via a phone cable. Wireless phones connect through a small dish on the roof or a mast, to a server (the same as wireless broadband). The phone itself is just a normal fixed telephone, it is the connection type that differs. Where does this fit in? Tinkstar1985 02:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Name

Shouldn't this article be called Mobile Telephone? "Phone" is just a colloquialism for Telephone. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 08:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name for an article. Mobile phone or cell phone is the most common name, Mobile telephone is not. And use the move this page, not copy and paste. Corvus cornix_talk 06:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it should be Mobile phone not Mobile Telephone. The secound one just sound strange these days. CrZTgR (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

i think it should be cell phone that is the most common name i hear--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC) :]

The term "mobile phone" is ubiquitous in UK while the term "cell phone" is hardly ever used. When do we get the choice between UK Wikipedia and US Wikipedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

your right about that,but in the U.S well where im from nobody ever uses that term mobile phone i mean its not a big deal im not asking for it to be changed to cell phone but just was stateing in other places the term mobile phone is not used--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, hand phone is a pretty common usage, too. Having this at mobile phone is probably best. Cell phone is a poor term as it refers to a specific technology - which will change over time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hand phone common??? I don't think its common in standard English. I also don't like the fact it's the first one listed when in my opinion it's not commonly used in the US and UK. From what I know handphone is used in countries where their first language is NOT English. 124.138.199.2 (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hand phone is not common usage at all. Having it as cell phone is probably the best, until the technology changes, but the Britlish users seem to be more militant at enforcing their usage on the rest of us. -LlywelynII (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jack, above. Can you add the difference between the two terms on this page? And where the two terms came from? I don't know why some use 'mobile phone' and others use 'cell phone'. Thanks!--134.134.139.72 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I guess we need to reflect popular useage and unless there is a clean and easy way to accommodate both, perhaps we need to look at numbers or percentage use across the English speaking countries? What do they call it in Canada and in Australia etc? I can't imagine this issue has not cropped up many times before, but I can't seem to find a clear Wikipedia policy. We seem to be a long way from needing official mediation, anyway! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  This can't have not been discussed before; look in the archives. Please don't get any serious expectations of this moving anywhere. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but does your phone move about on its own? Is it more able to be moved about than the wireless phone you use in your house? Mobile phone, like cell phone, is just an accepted term, no more appropriate or sensible than cell phone. Unlike wikiscribe, I do question why it's mobile phone. The term is not used in the United States, and while Wikipedia is not merely for U.S. readers, it is *from* the U.S., and there are certainly more U.S. users than U.K. users, so why should the U.K. term be default? Thanks for the "cheers" at the end of each comment, by the way. Because that hasn't been done by a hundred million other smarmy people... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.31.203 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  Cheers, "67.182.31.203", but my mobile phone doesn't have a cell. Phew! thanks for clarifying for us all that these wonderful gadgets things are in fact *from* the US. I'm Nokia sure would love to hear that.Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  p.s. I guess you mean portable phone instead of wireless? Cheers! Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  --Straw man. Didn't say all gadgets are from the U.S.. Also, you're right; Japan makes cars today, ergo they invented them. I don't understand your portable versus wireless comment. Is it a jibe, or do you think my term incorrect? Either way, only showing why it's an American English page with the U.K. English name better than an argument could.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.31.203 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  67.182.31.203 has a point. Neither does my cell phone move on its own, nor does your mobile phone have a cell and yet it's the same thing. And BTW Nokia, Sony Ericsson and everyone else manufacturing cell phones these days are neither from US, nor from UK. If only there were a name well known and suitable for everyone, but there isn't one, so we should resort to the name used here. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• In Australia the term mobile phone is used. 13:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.176.38 (talk)

BTW, whole article is written in American English and so should be the title, too. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia policy is to retain the dialect of the original article writer unless there's a compelling reason to change. Gasoline is under "gasoline" rather than "petrol" because that's the international scientific term as well as the American common term. This article has an amusing mixture of British and American terminology, which no doubt comes from different authors updating different sections. But given that "cell phone" is listed as a synonym of "mobile phone" at the beginning of the article, that's not a big deal. I did reword "massive voice call buckets" to "a large number of monthly minutes at a discount rate", because the former is not understandable to Americans. 216.39.144.127 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that this discussion has been dead for a while, but I thought I'd comment. IF this were just a site for British and American users, then I would probably agree that the American term, 'cell phone', should be used. Wikipedia is, of course, an American creation. HOWEVER, this is not the case. Although this site is an American creation, it is for ALL English speaking users. The article title should therefore reflect the most common term amongst the English-speaking world. As 203.59.176.38 has already pointed out, 'mobile phone' is the most used term in Australia. I don't know for sure, but I think that you will find that 'mobile phone' is used by most of the English-speaking world, with 'cell phone' being limited to mainly American usage. For this reason, I believe that the article should remain under its current title. Zestos (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

See also + Mobile phones template

What about merging these two? The links in See also could be placed in this template and the template placed in See also section. Curently, the links in See also are not categorized, which temlpate could do (like Template:Microsoft for example).--Kozuch (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mobile communication standards template

What does this template do on this page??? It should only reside on pages it lists. It is not about a mobile phone as a device, but about technological standards (which are a completely different thing than an electronic device). I propose its removal.--Kozuch (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldnt stand that - removed. It was only disturbing the page.--Kozuch (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cellphone Ban in Canadian Provinces

I think this is relevant to this article. 3 Canadian provinces have banned cellphone usage in cars effective April 1, 2008, with stiff penalties for those caught. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador has already issued its own ban a few months ago, and the provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia are following suit. Seeing as this is not yet mentioned in the current article, i think it would be a good idea to mention it, and to also mention that headset sales for cellphones have skyrocketed in the mentioned provinces in anticipation of the bill's implementation. AnthonyWalters (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Cellphones are also banned in many states and counties in the U.S. For example, the state of New York has had a ban for a couple of years, in addition to the county I live in which was the 1st county ban in the U.S. when it occurred a few years ago. One of the primary reasons for the government bans, which ought to definitely be included in this article is the psychology research suggesting that cellphone use while driving is the equivalent of low, but illegal levels of alcohol consumption. This has been confirmed in several peer-reviewed scientific studies.Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think this should be included in this article - there are A LOT of places in the world where phone usage while driving is not allowed - it would be pointless/impossible to list them all. Tauntz (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Cell phone usage low in North America

What is often not mentioned when comparing cellular phone penetration rates amongst various countries is that unlike in Europe and the rest of the world, North American phone companies never charged their customers per minute rates for local, land line phone services. Given the choice between unlimited local service with a landline phone or the ability to make calls with a cellular phone and be charged a per minute rate, I think most consumers would pick the former. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.4.163 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

History of Cellphones Requires Revision

The history of cellphones as presented here requires revision as it gives the false impression that cellphones were invented in the United States - which they were clearly NOT. America is actually the last place in the industrialized world to adopt cellphone use, as it is with High Definition Television. Someone with a less Americentric viewpoint needs to take the History portion of this article apart and rebuild it so that provides a closer reflection of reality. I am an American, but this is embarrassing that the contributors of this article would have been so biased as to improperly reflect cellphone development as being led by the technical superiority of the U.S. Unfortunately, for America as history in reality goes, very few companies were investing in technology research of any sort (Bell Labs, Xerox, IBM, being notable exceptions) in the 1970's and early to mid-1980's - computer-technology being the only area of focus (driven by government funding). Anyhoo, the current account of the cellphone's (mobile) history is seriously misrepresented here and in dire need of an overhaul. As with many, if not most of the technology history articles on Wikipedia, there are enormous gaps in information that through the virtue of information abstinence, provide an incorrect depiction of history as it occurred. Regards, Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Then where were they invented? The history section isn't very well referenced, but the parts in question are. I don't see the need to change any part of it. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cell phone and mobile phone is not the same

Using mobile phone and cell phone as synonyms is wrong. Cell phone is just one variety of mobile phone. Mobile phone can be cell phone, sattelite phone, car phone etc., as they all are mobile. This needs to be fixed. Netrat_msk (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about cell phones only. The problem with renaming it to "Cellular phone" is that cellular technology is slowly becoming obsolete. Some 4G implementations, for instance, don't use the cellular concept anymore.

Except that the article was converted over from a cellular phone-specific article and still contains a lot of statements that only apply to cell phones. E.g., from the top: The mobile phone (also called a wireless phone or cellular phone)[1] is a short-range, portable electronic device used for mobile voice or data communication over a network of specialized base stations known as cell sites. Then later there's an entire section on Related non-mobile-phone systems that used to be Related non-cell-phone systems which specfically states that, e.g., satellite phones are not mobile phones. Confusing

I guess the correct name would be "Hand-held terrestrial mobile phone" because that's what this article is actually about. But that would be an awkward name, and the term "mobile phone" has become synonymous with the above in most parts of the world. --Cambrasa confab 12:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because "hand-held terrestrial mobile phone" might well include high powered long range cordless phones, such as those sold by Samsung that have a range of around 100km, as well as various trunk mobile radio systems and DECT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.22.198 (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "cell phone" term already obsolete?

I'm certain I've read in the past that the original analog mobile phone technology was called "cellular", but that the digital technology which obsoleted it is not officially/technically called "cellular".

So although "cell phone" is still widely used colloquially, you'll never find your telephone company using that term -- always "mobile phone" instead.

Not true? I don't have time to research the issue myself...

Also, under environmental impacts, don't cell phones use more energy than landlines? Which is more energy efficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.205.191 (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

See also archive

Archiving the section before major cleanup:

Mobile phone generations: 0G, 1G, 2G, 2.5G, 2.75G, 3G, 3.5G and 4G. 1seg BitPim, mobile phone content managing program BlackBerry Cell Broadcast Cellular coverage Cellular repeater Clamshell (AKA "Flip phone") Comparison of mobile phone standards Cordless phone Dead zone Dropped call E-waste Global Positioning System (GPS) Globalstar GSM services Inmarsat iPhone Iridium List of camera phones List of FM/AM capable phones List of mobile network operators Location-based game Location-based service and GSM localization Marine and mobile radio telephony Missed call Mobile advertising Mobile dating Mobile development BREW (Binary Runtime Environment for Wireless) Java ME MIDlet

Mobile gambling Mobile games Mobile Internet Mobile learning Mobile payment Mobile phone penetration rate Mobile phones on aircraft Mobile publishing Mobile VoIP moblog – mobile weblog One seg - TV watch Over The Air Programmable Pager Push to talk QR Code Radiation and Health Regulation on roaming charges within the European Union Ringxiety Roaming Semacode Seventh Mass Media Signal strength SIM lock and unlocking Smartphone [SMS Short Message System ie Text Messaging] SMS gateways Social positioning method Spectral efficiency comparison table Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) Thuraya TuxPhone – an Freesource Mobile Phone Voice command device Voice recognition Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) Wireless power recharging Wireless Village – mobile phone instant messaging protocol

--Kozuch (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

hi there!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.23.254 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"Safety Concerns" section incorrectly titled

As of 7/29/08, there is a section in this article titled "safety concerns" that is actually about cell phone usage in airplanes. I suggest that the title be changed from "safety concerns" to "use in aircraft", but the article is semi-protected and I am not autoconfirmed yet, so someone else will have to implement this change for me, if deemed reasonable. Thank you.

Diracula (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Vandalism

"The first commercial mobile phone service was launched in Japan by NTT in 1978. By November 2007, the total number of mobile phone subscriptions in the world had reached 3.3 billion, or half of the human population (GO JERRY SCOTT WIKIPEDIA SUCKS ASS)(although some users have multiple subscriptions, or inactive subscriptions), which also makes the mobile phone the most widely spread tech(WIKEPIDIA SUCKS ASSHOLE U MOTHERFUCKERs)nology and the most common electronic device in the world.[3]"

I don't edit wikipedia much and I can't fix the article. Hopefully somebody else will soon.

Article Needs Editing

This article needs revision badly. The first section is so rambling it is almost unreadable. Somebody please help fix it! Diderot08 (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What the--?!

Worldwide the accepted term is cellphone, not mobile phone - which is used only in the UK. Wikipedia is well on the road toward mainstream acceptance. 70.53.109.109 (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Both are accepted terms, and "mobile phone" is not only used in the UK: Mobile phone terms across the world. —Snigbrook 15:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(also in that article it mentions "cell phone" not "cellphone".) —Snigbrook 15:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually just because the American term is 'cell phone' that doesnt make it the most accsepted name. Mobile phone is used in most englush speaking countrys around the world + other countrys learning the language will learn English not American english.84.70.40.32 (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

People use both terms. It certainly doesn't mean British usage is the standard. -LlywelynII (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Telephone: Emerging Mobile Media Environment

Coming from humble beginnings, the mobile phone has reached astonishing levels of diverse capabilities stemming from one device. This phenomenon has been driven by remarkable increases in popularity. ‘From 1985 to 2002 the number of cellular phone subscribers in the U.S. grew from under 350,000 to nearly 150 million’ (Levinson, 2004). Emphasising the cultural shift and transformation in the way we communicate with one another, and the increasing societal need for instant gratification. For example; the iphone and the blackberry are at the epitome of this cultural trend as we are now able to run our daily lives with the simple use of one device. This poses potential threats for substitute devices, such as the PC , laptop, digital cameras and music players. Furthermore, these devices have facilitated society’s ever increasing desire for constant and around the clock availability. This is particularly evident in the corporate world as many executives now carry work in their top pockets. So what does the future hold for the emerging mobile media environment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossmas229 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I went to this site to check something and at first couldn't believe what I saw, until I realised it had been vandalised. I reverted the page to the previous edit, the first time I have ever done this, but before doing so noticed that the page has been subject to persistent vandalism, it seems by different people. Any comments I could make about this are obvious and unnecessary. Is there any way persistant vandalism can be dealt with? P0mbal (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mobile-phone article botched 20 days

12-Jan-2009: The article "mobile phone" is often viciously hacked. The term "mobile phone" might be a major target-name for vandalism. Of course, multiple editors could not cope with the stampede of vandalism, and on 23Dec08, the article "mobile phone" was hacked and botched by an IP address, in a series of edits, to omit 6 whole sections of text about the features, applications and setup of cell phones. Next, additional hackings and advert-links were reverted for another 2 weeks. However, the prior vandalism went uncorrected for 20 days, as people could no longer cope with daily corrections to long complex articles. It is not always obvious how to merge old hacked text into an article with 3 weeks of new changes. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)