Talk:History of mobile phones

Bunk Alert

This article seems to have a lot of misinformation and gaps in it -- "Mobileer" is a term unique to a single amateur radio club in Maryland which has nothing to do with mobile phones. The credit for first mobile telephone is certainly due to the Bell System working together with several two-way radio companies (Motorola, GE, RCA, Dumont) in the late 1940's to develop a system for a car-mounted duplex VHF radio with selective signaling. Original Bell MTS survived through the early 1970's.

Altaphon 00:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

When battery size is reduce, size of mobile also reduced. Shanu paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.5.21 (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

godmother of mobile devices

in a recent news article of "indian express" there was a mention about a famous hollywood actress who's considered to be the godmother of mobile devivces... so i would like the research team of wikipedia to look for the information in depth and add the info to the article.... unfortunately i've lost the newspaper or else i would have edited the page. to help u guys a little more bout her... she was the first one to do a nude scene in hollywood... she was also married to some army guy during one of the world wars.

thank you. shreyank khemalapure, from belgaum, karnataka, india. contact me at (amabstracted@gmail.com) (amabstracted@yahoo.co.in) (59.92.241.127 08:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

That would be Hedy Lamarr

InternetMeme (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional section...

I am currently incorporating a new section into the history of mobile phones. I wanted to add a section covering the social/historical aspect of mobile phones. Do you think this would be appropriate for the history of mobile phone page or better suited for a page on the societal impacts of the mobile phone (which does not currently exist). There is a wikipedia page on Mociology, which is the study of human behavior in a mobile world and the study of mobile device/phone lifestyles, however. Would a section about the social/historical aspect of mobile phones be better incorporated into the page on Mociology? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbwilson333 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC). i dont care — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.104.71.99 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Third Generation Section...

I re-entered the Third Generation section because it is a crucial link in the historical development of the mobile phone. It describes one of the most modern generations of the mobile phone and coincides with the previous parts of the article (First Generation, Second Generation). This section should be left in due to its relevant nature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbwilson333 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry I missed the vandalism by 203.51.12.5 that you reverted, when I reverted one line of vandalism. Greensburger 14:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Amateur Radio

Amateur Radio operators used Autopatch, which allows operators to make phone calls from a portable radio.

This was popular until the proliferation of cell phones. I think it deserves a mention in this history article. Greenlead (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Cooper's Photo Caption

The photo of Dr. Martin Cooper references an event in 1973, but the photo was taken in 2007. How does the caption change to show all the facts? Simon (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence that says it was a 2007 reenactment. Greensburger (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cell phones an Israeli innovation

The IACT website of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre says that cell phones are an Israeli innovation. http://iact.wiesenthal.org Why isn't that mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.15.241.217 (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the Simon Wisenthal Center is as usual full of CRAP and lying! It is a very common piece of Zionist propaganda (hasbara in Hebrew) that claims Israel had something to do with inventing the cell phone. The invention of the modern cell phone took place only in the United States involving Motorola based near Chicago, Illinois and AT&T Bell Labs in New Jersey.Historylover4 (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If anyone reads this who has knowledge on the topic, a more measured response would be appreciated as it is a relatively common claim. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

First mention?

The oldest mention of a "wireless telephone" I can find was published in March 1910 in the Barts student magazine. Are their many before that?--BozMo talk 20:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

After Lee De Forest invented the Audion tube electronic amplifier in 1906 and it was wired as an oscillator, the old spark-gap radio-transmitters were replaced by continuous wave (CW) radio transmittors. Although this was morse code telegraphy, a simple modification put a telephone carbon microphone in series with the antenna to transmit spoken words. The article you refer to was probably about using two CW wireless transmitters with two telephone microphones as a simple two-way voice radio over short distances. Radio receivers did not require modification. But this was not a "wireless telephone" as we know it, because the two-way radios could not dial into the telephone network. And since AT&T prohibited any electrical connections to its landline network, the cell phone had to wait until AT&T and Motorola engineers got around to developing it with approval by their management and the FCC. Greensburger (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The mention was of the form of a statement of expectation that by "about 1974" a doctor would be readily available on call in emergency via on a "wireless telephone." So very much the modern concept I think. --BozMo talk 14:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Curious about this. I just noticed a New York Times article of 22 December 1906 describing a phone call successfully being made from a moving train near Louisville, Ky. The report says calls were made over a distance of sixty miles and more with good results, but that one made to New York was indistinct. It wasn't really mobile, since the apparatus apparently relied on wires alongside the track to carry the signal and anyway the train was only going at twenty mph. The device used was 'connected with a trolley arrangement on the pilot of the engine from which, by means of a stream of chemicalized steam, the circuit was completed with two wires stretched alongside the track.' But - 'a stream of chemicalized steam'??!!? Is this true, or perhaps some sort of out-of-season hoax by NYT? The inventor is named as a Louisville resident, Dr A D Jones.RLamb (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

First, the radio system that people are used to is fully called "broadcast radio". One transmitter starts the signal (emitteur in French), optional repeating transmitters to reach a wider area (transmitteurs in French), any number of receivers. But radio started out being too expensive for ordinary people to afford a receiver. Instead, it was considered to be just usable for point-to-point communication, like land-line telephones turned out to be. The British and French used this in WWI (and before and after) used two terms for two-way radio communication: wireless telegraphy (with the direct equivalent in the French language being telegraphie sans fil), which used those Morse-code handsets called keys ; and radio telephony (radio-telephonie) which used a TELEPHONE HANDSET. But all these supposedly point-to-point communications could be listened-in on by others with a receiver (notably German troops). There was no scrambling of voice, although map references could be encoded and units and commands given code names. Some police forces in cars, and taxi fleets in their cabs, took the radio telephony system roughly from the 1930s. Later some telephone firms offered the radio extension to civilians over a limited area. The modern system differs in three major changes : encoding of the voice, so that nobody can listen in ; a co-ordinated system of antennas at the points of an hexagonal grid, so that there could be communication over vast areas rather than a few counties, and by many people rather than a few hundreds ; and the ability to exchange the signal path when one goes across the line from one hexagon to another. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HISTORIC MOBILE PHONES AND THE PRESENT CELL PHONES IS SIGNIFICANT TO HISTORICAL NOVELISTS. Detectives, executives, financiers, and playboys during the middle third of the twentieth century would have MOBILE PHONES in their cars, not their pockets, with the possibility of being listened-in on, limited range, and a much greater possibility of loss of signal. CELL phones are what we have now... even if some of us are English and don't use that term. 209.6.175.150 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

Section titles

I don't think the titles are very descriptive in terms of the history of the mobile phone. And saying Zero Generation I'm not even sure is a widely used term to describe the pre 1973 history. Given that this article is not just about the technology, but also the commercial services that developed alongside the technology, I propose some title changes to help guide the reader through the history. In essence, the bit labelled zero Gen is in fact the first example of commercial use starting to be made whereas before that it was more lab/research based. ChrisUK (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fourth Generation

Is 4G really an appropriate section for a mobile phone history article? If so, we should talk about the first 4G networks to arrive (I don't know of any yet, but I only have a UK persepctive). We have to be careful I think not to fall into the trap of using this article to describe what the technologies are (there are other better articles to do this) but instead should frame the technology into a historical context. I'm not going to delete the section, I'm just interested in peoples views. ChrisUK (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a revert war. I just think that as this is a history article, it should contain things that happened in the past. Therefore the use of the past tense and references to people and events etc would be expected. Please rewrite this section to talk about the first 4G deploymentsChrisUK (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good call; sorry I hadn't seen your note here on the talk page previously, but nice application of WP:BRD. I've had a go at recasting the article with the proper historical tone. Reading through it, I felt that the problem went deeper than just the 4G section, so I've made changes across all the sections that treat on current technologies. Please have a look and let me know what you think, and thanks again for taking the initiative! —Rnickel (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This looks better now with the historical perspective, but I still think the jury is out on whether Wimax is an evolution for the mobile phone device in the same way as the previous 1G->2G-3G. To your point in the revision history, what marked the end of 3G? I think that the history will diverge now between devices you carry in your pocket (like smart phones etc) which continue to use 3G technology and bigger devices like laptops which primarily use higher bandwidth data, perhaps wimax or others. The primary difference is that although both are wireless, 3G is cellular (ie supports handover when on the move which is particularly important for voice or browsing data on a train) whereas Wimax is fixed location (does not need to handover, e.g. sitting in a starbucks). The movement from circuit to packet for voice is a fairly minor difference in this context.

The point I'm making with all this is that it is not clear the role that 4G will play in the history (because it hasn't happened yet) so the reader of this article may believe that wimax is beginning to replace 3G phone which is not true. I think some of this can be resolved by merging the growth of mobile broadband section and 4G section to give a single view of how mobile data started to change the game. I'll have a go at this, but won't delete any content, just to see how it looks.ChrisUK (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is incomplete

This article says that it is the History of Mobile Phones, but it mostly just talks about the changes in technology, and less about usage and design. Is there another article that covers this? Could this article be expanded? If not, should another article be created that deals with these other topics?--Jojhutton (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There's not another one that I know of. I suggest you add the content you suggest to this page and then the process of editing down will determine whether an article split is needed or not.ChrisUK (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Altay system

Altay system is in fact, sattelite phone system, not cellular system. --MathFacts (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Should include light telephone by Bell

I believe someone working with edison or bell, created a light phone using germainium crystals and reflectors, sun and mirrors; did a demo in Baltimore MD in the 1880. might be nice to include that in the history of wireless phones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.241.102 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This is about systems that allow mobile users to place and recieve calls from the public switched telephone network. The photophone is not relevant to this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving Rural Radio Telephone Service information

I've removed the information below because it does not relate to mobile telephony. Rural Radio Telephone service was a backhaul solution that connected traditional land line telephones via radio to a remote central office. RRT did not enable mobility. I've preserved the content below so that it can be incorporated into a more appropriate article elsewhere.

Begin removed content

Rural Radiotelephone Service Using the same channel frequencies as IMTS, the US Federal Communications Commission authorized Rural Radiotelephone Service for fixed stations. Because RF channels were shared with MILFS IMTS, the service was licensed only in areas that were remote from large Bureau of the Census Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs).

Systems used UHF 454 MHz or 152 MHz radio channels to provide telephone service to extremely rural places where it would be too costly to extend cable plant. One such system was on a 454/459 MHz channel pair between the Death Valley telephone exchange and Stovepipe Wells, California. This specific system carried manual calls to the Traffic Service Position System (TSPS) center in Los Angeles. Stovepipe Wells callers went off-hook and were queried, "Number please," by a TSPS operator, who dialed the call. Dial service was introduced to Stovepipe Wells in the mid-1980s. The radio link has since been replaced by cable. The analog service has since been replaced by Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Service, a digital system using the same frequencies. 71.212.85.236 (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Parking redundant information

The information parked below is redundant and/or unsourced, rehashing the more specific information in the MTS, IMTS and RRT sections. I have preserved the information primarily because it includes some potentially good information regarding mobile telephony outside the U.S., assuming sources can be found to back up the statements and dates.

Removed information begins below

Before cellular networks

These mobile radio telephone services preceded modern cellular mobile telephony technology. Since they were the predecessors of the first generation of cellular telephones, these systems are sometimes retroactively referred to as pre cellular (or sometimes zero generation) systems. Technologies used in pre cellular systems included the Push to Talk (PTT or manual), Mobile Telephone System (MTS), Improved Mobile Telephone Service (IMTS), and Advanced Mobile Telephone System (AMTS) systems. These early mobile telephone systems can be distinguished from earlier closed radiotelephone systems in that they were available as a commercial service that was part of the public switched telephone network, with their own telephone numbers, rather than part of a closed network such as a police radio or taxi dispatch system.

These mobile telephones were usually mounted in cars or trucks, though briefcase models were also made. Typically, the transceiver (transmitter-receiver) was mounted in the vehicle trunk and attached to the "head" (dial, display, and handset) mounted near the driver seat.

They were sold through WCCs (Wireline Common Carriers, AKA telephone companies), RCCs (Radio Common Carriers), and two-way radio dealers.

Early examples for this technology:

• Motorola in conjunction with the Bell System operated the first commercial mobile telephone service Mobile Telephone System (MTS) in the US in 1946, as a service of the wireline telephone company.
• The A-Netz launched 1952 in West Germany as the country's first public commercial mobile phone network.
• First automatic system was the Bell System's IMTS which became available in 1962, offering automatic dialing to and from the mobile.
• The Televerket opened its first manual mobile telephone system in Norway in 1966. Norway was later the first country in Europe to get an automatic mobile telephone system.
• The Autoradiopuhelin (ARP) launched in 1971 in Finland as the country's first public commercial mobile phone network.
• The B-Netz launched 1972 in West Germany as the country's second public commercial mobile phone network (but the first one that did not require human operators to connect calls).71.212.85.236 (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be more effective to flag this with citation needed flags in the article text, instead of exiling information to a talk page. I've returned this section to the text but flagged it; it's got a (very slightly) better chance of attracting some attention and references there. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to read the entire article to see that the info you've reverted, including what is above the bullet list, is already covered better elsewhere in the article, with citations. There is no reason to cover the same information twice, so I've removed it again. Once the redundant information is removed, we're left with a small, out of context bullet list, which is essentially triva - and neither of those are WP. I don't object to the information in the bullet list appearing in the article, but it needs to be in *prose* form, not as a list. Moving uncited content to the talk page is absolutely appropriate, especially when it's just a disjointed bullet list of trivia. Please turn the information into encyclopedic prose before returning it to the article. Tcomotcom (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So why are we hiding the German, etc. networks? Mobile telephones were developed in more than one place. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Parking "trivia"

A list of patents without context or prose description is not encyclopedic. The information below is parked here so that other editors may be able to research the applicability of the patents to various sections of the article and where appropriate, fold the information into the document, discussing why the patent is particularly notable or supports a key concept in the article.

Parked information begins below

Patents

• U.S. patent 3,449,750:Duplex Radio Communication and Signaling Apparatus for Portable Telephone — George Sweigert of Euclid, Ohio, filed 2 May 1966, issued 10 June 1969
• U.S. patent 3,663,762: Cellular Mobile Communication System — Amos Edward Joel (Bell Labs), filed 21 December 1970, issued 16 May 1972
• Swedish Patent N:o 357481, Mobil radioanläggning (Mobile radio system), R Berglund, T von Brömssen, Östen Mäkitalo (Televerket), filed 4 June 1971, issued 5 May 1973.
• U.S. patent 3,906,166: Radio Telephone System (Dyna-Tac) — Martin Cooper et al. (Motorola), filed 17 October 1973, issued 16 September 1975
• U.S. patent 4,144,411: Cellular Radiotelephone System for Different Cell Sizes — Richard H. Frenkiel (Bell Labs), filed 22 September 1976, issued 13 March 1979
• U.S. patent 4,152,647: Rapidly deployable emergency communication system — Charles A. Gladden and Martin H. Parelman, of Las Vegas, filed 23 February 1978, issued 1 May 1979
• U.S. patent 4,399,555: Cellular Mobile Radiotelephone System — Verne MacDonald, Philip Porter, Rae Young, (Bell Labs) filed 28 April 1980, issued 16 August 1983
• U.S. patent 5,129,098: Radio telephone using received signal strength in controlling transmission power — Andrew McGirr, Barry Cassidy (Novatel), filed 24 September 1990, issued 7 July 1992
• U.S. patent 5,265,158: Construction of a stand alone portable telephone unit — Jouko Tattari (Nokia), filed 11 May 1992, issued 23 November 1993
• U.S. patent 5,722,067: Security cellular telecommunications system — Douglas Fougnies et al. (Freedom Wireless), filed December 1994, issued 24 February 1998
• U.S. patent 5,826,185: Cellular phone system wherein the air time use is predetermined — Andrew Wise et al. (Banana Communications), filed November 1994, issued 20 October 1998
• U.S. patent 5,841,856: Hands-free telephone set — Yoshiyuki Ide (NEC), filed 21 May 1997, issued 24 November 1998
• U.S. patent 7,324,480: Mobile communication apparatus and method including base station and mobile station having multi-antenna: Per-User Unitary Rate Control (PU2RC) — James S. Kim, Kwangbok Lee, Kiho Kim and Changsoon Park, filed 10 July 2003, issued 29 January 2008

Focus

My goodness. Mobile radio telecommunications started in 1946. And just a couple of weeks ago we were all hearing about SOS sent from the Titanic. Must have been using smoke signals or something. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggest merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest merging any non-redundant contents of Mobile radio telephone to this article, and then making a redirect at Mobile radio telephone that points at Mobile phone. MRT only disucsses historical systems and substantially duplicates the content in this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Form the merger propertly as you have been instructed time and time again to do. A merge tag is required on both the source and target articles. Also take note of the warning from your recent RfC and your recent block which was for ignoring the judgement from that RfC (which encompassed excessive merging). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In any case:

Oppose : Mobile radio telephone is very much a super set of mobile phones and therefore warrants its own article. It is certainly a superset of just a mere history article. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Mobile radio telephone is a notable subject in its own right. It is distinct from 'Mobile phone'. Also this is the second time that Wtshymanski has attempted to merge Mobile radio telephone with another article. The previous proposed merger with Mobile phone was unanimously opposed. The reasons provided for the opposition to that merger are equally valid here. Presumably the technique here is to continue proposing mergers until one is unopposed. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggest merge Sept 2012

Mobile radio telephone is redundant with this article and ought to be merged with it; we have Mobile phone to discuss current cellular systems. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• oppose Mobile radio telephones are radio telephones, with an added integration to the PSTN. That is significantly different to mobile phones, which are fundamentally cellular. There's no more sense in merging one of these into the overall history article than there would be in merging the other. This is just a bored Wtshymanski randomly pressing his Merge button yet again. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Remark (Mobile radio telephone)₁ is the regulatory name for talking on the radio and is still used in regulations, etc. - but doesn't imply connection to the public switched telephone network. (Mobile radio telelephone)₂ is a commercial telephone service that allows customers to place phone calls to PSTN telephones over the radio from a mobile vehicle or handset. These systems are extinct (or at least moribund) - there aren't any still in operation. They are historical and should be discussed in the history article. This article only discusses the obsolete form of PSTN connections and so is redundant with the "history" version of the same article. In principle,(Mobile radio telephone)₁ could be a worth while article of its own, discussing the general relatory and technical issues, and history, of radio communication with cars and ships and planes...but we already have two-way radio and mobile rig and airband and others of the the usual well-thought-out panoply of Wikipedia leaves with no tree to support them. A fear of merges can be cured. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • You;re right, we would have an overlap. So let's merge Mobile radio telephone to History of mobile radio telephones, just as you describe.

Now what should we do about the articles we actually have, the far broader history of mobile phones? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. There is no History of mobile radio telephones. The article Mobile radio telephone says "Mobile radio telephone systems preceded modern cellular mobile telephony technology. Since they were the predecessors of the first generation of cellular telephones, these systems are sometimes retroactively referred to as pre cellular (or sometimes zero generation) systems. " This article History of mobile phones currently has as the second item in the index "Early services - 0G" which describes in proper prose form the bullet-point items from Mobile radio telephone. Whyis it necessary for the encyclopedia to give the same information in two places, one here and one in Mobile radio telephone? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It may not be necessary to give the same information twice, but it is common practice for us to do so, and for it to be useful to do so. The key factor is clarity and readability for our readers. It's entirely proper to have an overall article (History of... in this case) and a narrower, more detailed article. Merging all of Mobile radio telephone would be against WP:UNDUE as it would overload the broad history article. Yet what part of Mobile radio telephone is inappropriate to delete from that article?

You know all this already. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

<outdenting for my claque> Looking at Mobile radio telephone, we have three introductory paragraphs (essentially rehashing the history), an "Origins" section with eight randomly selected bullet points (that briefly mention systems described in readable prose in this article with references), and a section on "Radio Common Carrier" which duplicates the section in this article. *You* know *this*, too. What, prithee, is the reader getting from Mobile radio telephone that isn't already explained, in prose and not bullet-point-ese, in this article? What is your opinion on renaming this article to History of mobile radio telephones as you seemed to suggest above (AGF)? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• • My opinion on renaming this article to History of mobile radio telephones is of course that I'll go along with consensus, if that's what others think. Personally I think it's unnecessary, as we don't have all that much history within Mobile radio telephone.

• Mobile radio telephone should, as it does fairly well at present, explain first and foremost what they either are or were (if the last of them, including boat systems, has indeed been switched off). This can expand to substantial detail, should anyone feel the urge to write it. It should also include a history, giving the date of their first pioneering work and the date range for which they were a workable system in significant use. Now only part of that would belong in History of mobile radio telephones. Also, as I doubt that we have a "4G" of radio telephones, then there's little need for such a specific history article.

There is just no problem here. Why are you trying to merge articles that don't need it, and that no-one else is calling to merge? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that we already have a (referenced) article to talk about the history of mobile telephones. The "history" section of Mobile radio telephone (MRT for short) is inadequate, point form, omits much, and has no references. If we removed the whole "history" section from MRT, there's not a lot left. MRT doesn't realy get around to explaining what an MRT is until well into the lead. There's nothing substantive past the lead. The "origins" section could be replaced with a main|History of Mobile phones and a summary paragraph (instead of bullet points). The RCC section is already in HoMP and is redunant here. What is actually left in MRT? What should be in MRT? And what technical detail would we give here that's not already in Radiotelephone? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose This article is essentially about the history of handheld phones, although I accept that it strays in places. That is, the content of the article is broadly what it says on the tin. Adding in the MRT content would only serve to confuse the reader early on. My suggestion is to create History of mobile telephony and link this article and MRT from inside there. ChrisUK (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. This article (HoMP for short) already has all the history contents of MRT with references and in proper English text. MTS< IMTS, RCCetc. were not using hand-held devices, you'd be lucky to get all the gear into a large suitcase in that era. There would be very little change to this article if MRT was merged. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

well, if it's the case that this article won't change very much, then it's not a merge request, it's a request to delete MRT. That might help clarify the reasoning if the arguements for deletion were placed on the MRT page, and this page is not involved in the debate.ChrisUK (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose this article should contain summary (overview) info with links to other articles, like mobile radio telephony. joe (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)joe

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Well" known mobile phones?

Does anyone else have a problem with some of the wording used to describe the Nokia smartphones? In particular the phrase "well known for the 41-Megapixel primary camera and impressive PureView technology" seems like a marketing blurb. To be honest those phones are not nearly as "well known" as others in the list (namely, several of the blackberry devices, and other Android Devices). And the "PureView" technology is not revolutionary in any historical way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.137.231 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)