Talk:Mobile phone/Archive 1

message: I don't know if this article is simply outdated, or is just uninformed, regarding the technologies used by modern wireless phones.  Satellite phones are certainly not the only alternative to cellular phones--many, if not most, wireless phones being sold today use "PCS" technology instead of cellular technology.  (Caveat:  My knowledge is limited to the US market--I don't know what technologies are used elsewhere.) Niteowlneils 21:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal Communications Service is still cellular Edward 22:02, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: PCS is a marketing name for cellular service on the 1900 MHz band in North America. The same services can be (and are) provided on the 800/850 MHz band in North America and 900 and 1800 MHz elsewhere. --Nate Silva 21:23, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated 

message: I'd like to see a list of cell phone related laws here.  For example, in New York it's illegal to drive a car while talking on a cell phone.  Do any other States have such a law?  It'd be great to have a list (perhaps on its own page, linked from here -- Mobile Phone Laws or some such).
: germany (OK - another country, not another state...): Illegal to use a cell phone while driving anything (including bicycles), except if you are using a (er... what's english for Freisprechanlage?) headset (?). --Xeper 17:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be clarified that in the state of  New York it's against the law to use a hand held cell phone while driving.  It's not illegal to use a hands free phone when operating a vehicle.  User:SteggallSteggall 13:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I believe this is related to SIM lock, in which a carrier locks their phones to their network, so you can't use that phone with another network. Needless to say, it's popular to people who change their service. --YoungFreud 17:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: It's illegal in Australia to use a mobile (cell) phone while driving. User:The Living Peanut/sig 11:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information 

message: This is a good comprehensive article, but I agree with earlier comments that redundancy needs to be reduced.  Tempting as it might be, this page shouldnt be used to describe every single aspects of mobile phones.
I suggest only putting information about the mobile device on here and move network stuff to one of the many good technicial pages.  Also, I think there needs to be a new page describing the activities of mobile operators which pulls together some of the commercial stuff like the section on roaming
ChrisUK 13:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguishing general network from devices 

message: I don't think a section about future speculation is appropriate for an encyclopedia.  If and when some of these features appear, they will be captured and documented in this (or other) pages.  I am proposing making drastic cuts in this area, leaving only a reference to the fact that active R&D is going on in this area, rather than it being a dead end topic.
I don't know if there are any other precedents/examples in the wikipedia where future events are speculated upon.  I myself have actually included a 'futures' section in articles before, but that is only to indicate whether or not development is happening in that area (see intelligent network for an example).
What are your views?  Do we substantially remove this section?
ChrisUK 20:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made an attempt to prune out some wild claims (star trek, embedded human devices etc).   I have set out a structure for trying to highlight genuine areas of R&D.  I think it still needs more work though ChrisUK 00:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing section about future prospects 

message: Could someone give a concise explanation of what GSM, GPRS, TDMA, PCS, CDMA, 3G, PTT, SIP, RTP, terms in :Category:Mobile_telephony_standards, terms in :Category:Channel_access_methods and related terms all mean?  What seems to be sorely needed is a chart that clearly shows which Xs are types of Ys, and perhaps another that shows which protocols run on top of what other protocols?  It would be nice to have a coherent explanation of what level of abstraction each protocol works at (e.g. this protocol is what modulates the radio signal, this one is what establishes and maintains the phone-to-phone connection, etc.) and why they are needed (e.g. multiplexing is needed so that multiple signals can share the air; direct-sequence spread spectrum reduces harmful interference that other devices experience, frequency hopping increases privacy and interference from other devices, etc.) Which technologies are analog, and which are digital?  What about carrying voice and/or data?  Which are also used outside of wireless telephony? When were they finalized?  How do these all relate to frequency bands (e.g. GSM_frequency_ranges)?  Where do these frequency bands lie in the context of TV, radio, 802.11, cordless phones, visible light, etc.?  What geographic areas, which companies, and about how many people use which mobile phone technologies?
For example, it seems TDMA, CDMA, and FDMA are both physical-layer multiplexing schemes, TDMA being time-dividing, CDMA being code-dividing, and FDMA being frequency-dividing.  spread spectrum.  TDMA is often used to mean IS-136.  IS-136 is apparently the same thing as D-AMPS, even though the D-AMPS redirects to AMPS?  CDMA appears to be a form of Direct-sequence spread spectrum, even though it links to the spread spectrum article, which confusingly includes discussion of frequency-hopping spread spectrum techniques.
I found the existing collection of articles really hard to piece together in a coherent way in my brain.  I have a college degree in EECS; I can only imagine how confused the average reader must feel. 
Non-technical readers would probably greatly benefit from a simple step-by-step explanation of what happens when they place or receive a cell phone call. -- Beland 00:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good set of points and I have started to make some changes on the GSM core network page to reflect these comments.  I agree that some kind of page stitching it all together is needed.  However I don't agree it should be done on this page.  If you look  back at the history you will see a huge page with everything possible about mobile phones written up.  We then spent some time in the last two months boiling down the content and moving appropriate stuff to other pages.  The result is an article which mostly centres on the mobile phone as a device and cross references topics where necessary.  Judging by the edits that have taken place since then, this article is a lot more manageable and readable.  Please can we start a separate discussion section on this page proposing new content etc before it is added in ChrisUK 01:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: By the way, there is a description of a cell phone call set up on the GSM services page - it may need making less technical but I'd rather see that bit hacked aroubd than a brand new page created ChrisUK 01:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-technical overview needed

message: I believe this article should have a mention, especially in security concerns, about cellular phone cloning. I recall this being a popular crime a few years back, when cellular phones where really expensive, and included some rather ingenous methods of copying the phones data. --YoungFreud 17:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloning 

message: Substituted at 21:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment