Talk:Mobile phone/Archive 3

message: I just reverted the article to the last version (as far as I can tell) without vandalism. Please do not hesitate to correct me if wrong, as I am still a clueless newbie Julie C. Chang 08:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: * www.onecompare.com/mobilephonetariffs/comparetariffs.asp Compare all the UK mobile phone tariffs here 
* www.onecompare.com/mobilephonejargonbuster.asp Get an explanation of mobile phone jargon here 
Are these spam? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 57.66.51.165 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 December 2005.
:Yes - good call. And thanks for also following up with a warning on the User's talk page. -- Solipsist 16:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put HowardForums back because it is a wealth of technical infomation on mobiles (Threads: 776,123, Posts: 6,217,996, Members: 366,659, Currently Active Users: 5234). Also removed wiki.ehow.com/Make-a-Smart-Car-Surveillance-System-Using-a-Mobile-Phone Smart Car Surveillance System- has anyone actually read that link? It is very silly DIY project--PTSE 00:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes - I think that's an appropriate reference item. MyWikiBiz 16:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus please

message: Shouldn't the title of the article be Mobile telephone, as phone is an abbreviation of telephone?  Cacophony 02:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you're the sort of person who still says "violoncello". --UrbaneLegend 00:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the violincello.. Jellocube27 23:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile telephone 

message: I've heard Japan in '79 had the first cellphone 'net. Can somebody confirm?  Trekphiler 00:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: History of mobile phones would probably be a better place to inquire, but the article is lacking that info.  I'll go add to it right now. Cacophony 01:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanphone 

message: Thought I'd bring this up. Terrorists have been suspected of using disposable cell phones being untrackable and then being thrown away when they're done with them.
:There is no such thing as an untrackable, or disposable cell phone. Maybe you mean they use one-time pre-paid calling plans?  Cell phones are inherently less secure than "land lines".  You will never, ever see the U.S. President talking on any type of mobile telephone.   Cacophony 05:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist Threat 

message: I may have done something stupid with the links, but I can't check which is the best since I can't access either site from here. Could someone check the link I reverted today and determine what is at each location, hopefully providing feedback here? My apologies if I reverted a good change. 57.66.51.165 13:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: Hello,
I have written a mobile phone buyers guide, aimed at UK buyers. Would it be acceptable to add this to the external links section on this page?
www.mad4mobilephones.com/mobilephonebuyersguide.php3
If there are any suggestions to improve the guide I could update it.
:I'd say no. What little content there is can probably be put into Wikipedia articles, and there are far too many affiliate links for you to be promoting it here. See (WP:EL) links to normally avoid - numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. There are plenty of links at dmoz, and I think that would be the better place for your link and all the other links to all the other guides. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buyers Guide OK to add in the links? 

message: I have a problem with my cell phone -- one it was fine and the next minute the screen appeared all dis-colored and glitchy. It seems to be a permanent problem because it won't go away, and I believe it made a cracking sound because it was sat on -- but that may or may not be the problem. Does anybody know what it is? And if it's fixable, is it possible to transfer the data on the bad cell phone from the bad cell phone to a new cell phone?
Here are pictures of it:
-- Hz12kmblt 12:59, 18 Apr 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cell Phone problem

message: I removed the link to Cell Phone Recycling for Charities.  I don't see any any reason why it should be in the article.  If anyone wants to put it back, please put it under External Links, not "See also."
* www.recyclingforcharities dot com:  "Cell Phone Recycling for Charities"
Thanks for understanding.  Cheers --Starionwolf 00:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frequent spammer. I edited your entry above so it does not provide a Google hit for this site.--A. B. 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed URL Cell Phone Recycling 

message: I have just discovered that in the US you are charged for incoming calls as well as calls you make!  I found this on an earlier thread.
"
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)
replies: text: Don't forget that the decision is symptomatic of a poor numbering scheme. All UK landline number begin "01" or "02" and local numbers don't require the area code to be dialed. All UK mobile numbers have begun "03" to "07" in their time (now settled on "07"), thus are immediately distinguishable from landline numbers and are never in the same area code as a landline. In contrast, the US didn't bother reserving seperate, easily distinguished area codes for mobile numbers, hence the extra undesirable expense for mobile phone owners. 195.173.23.111 10:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds about right.  The other advantage is that telemarketing to cell phones is rare, because the annoyance and per-minute financial burden to cell phone users is much easier to prove, which in turn translates into monetary damages, which then attracts class action attorneys.  Plus nearly all attorneys use cell phones and therefore could become potential class representatives themselves!  So most telemarketers are smart and they keep away from cell phone numbers.  --Coolcaesar 06:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charging for Incoming Calls  

message: This seems a odd section - a combination of OR,wishlist and future gazing (some of which I'm sure will be correct but should it be here?).
--Charlesknight 09:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future