Talk:Mobile phone/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleaned up

message: 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)
thread_title:  mobile phone culture 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: (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)
thread_title:  Charging for Incoming calls 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article clean up 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other languages