Talk:Telecommunications

Archives
Archive 1

Telecommunication

Hi Light c =age at telecommunication. None of the issues from the old talk page seem relevant to the current article (which is why they have been archived). If there is a particular issue you feel is still relevant just copy it across from the archive.

Cedars 05:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason at all to archive. It tends to hide what people have said recently. But of course if thats your intention....8-(--Light current 13:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

--Djhbrown (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC) style suggestion: it might make easier reading if hyperlinks were used only for subject-specific content, eg not for countries mentioned etc.

Yes. See WP:OVERLINK.

Another good idea: don't reply talk items that are over one year old. ;^} Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Radio and TV

Radio and TV are not telecommunication as signals only pass one way. These are broadcast systems. Your defn specifies exchange of info.

The word telecommunication was adapted from the French word télécommunication. It is a compound of the Greek prefix tele- (τηλε-), meaning 'far off', and communication, meaning 'exchange of information'.[2]

my bolding --Light current 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition you highlighted was that of communication. If your argument was accepted this would make your term "broadcast communication" an oxymoron. I would suggest broadcast communication is a subset of telecommunications as implied in the article. Both broadcast and point-to-point communication are based on similar technical foundations. Cedars 00:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant broadcast systems. --Light current 00:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Look changing what you have written to substantiate some argument you are attempting to make is not going to work. The discussion of broadcast communication fits within the telecommunication article. Can you not think of any other suggestions on how to improve the article? Cedars 00:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Broadcast communication" an oxymoron--Light current 01:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Broadcast communication is widely used (see Haykin). There is no need to remove this content. Cedars 01:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you give more info on Haykin?--Light current 03:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Haykin, Simon (2001). Communication Systems (4th edition ed.). John Wiley & Sons. pp. pp 1—3. ISBN 0-471-17869-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help)

Improvement plan

To try to get this article upto GA status, I suggest we first remove all refs to TV and radio!--Light current 23:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would rather we did not. Cedars 00:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Y not?--Light current 00:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See comments above. Cedars 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I think radio and TV have to go! If you can justify keeping them in accordance with the defn on the page, then I will be pleased to let them stay. Otherwise.. tick... tick--Light current 01:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. I've already done that so there will be no need to remove the content. I was worried this might turn out to be like electrical engineering. Cedars 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in retrospect, I hate arguing with you. It really makes Wikipedia no fun to work on at all. The problem as I see it is, be it electrical engineering or telecommunications, there is no concrete definition of the term. So try to think of a way both our viewpoints can be represented in the article. Removing all the radio and television would only result in more edit wars - which would really suck. Cedars 01:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well my definition and most peoples is that telcomms does not include broadcast radio and TV. Why not set up a poll to find out?--Light current 03:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to have a poll. I want to write a good article. But if you want to write an alternate version of the page, I guess we can put it to a poll. Cedars 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets wait for a few more comments from others first. 8-|--Light current 05:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reading the article more carefully, I think we only need to remove the bits about TV as the radio bit is about proper 2 way comms!.--Light current 05:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, just a suggestion here. I was expecting some bit on information theory. After all, this is the industry it was conceived for.... I think you should talk about the theoretical framework of this field, maybe make a "theory" section and just give a little blurb, you have a link on the bottom to the subject but I don't believe it is justice to it.. it's a big thing you're missing here, imo. Timw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.221.41 (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Telecommunication: a definition

The following is the definition of telecommunication from the New Oxford American Dicitonary (in full and unedited):

“ telecommunication |ˌteləkəˌmyoōniˈkā sh ən| noun

communication over a distance by cable, telegraph, telephone, or broadcasting.

• ( telecommunications) [treated as sing. ] the branch of technology concerned with such communication.
• formal a message sent by such means.

ORIGIN 1930s: from French télécommunication, from télé- ‘at a distance’ + communication ‘communication.’

”

This dictionary comes standard with Mac OS X (which is why I use it). You'll notice that it explicitly includes broadcasting. It is also the same source Light current quoted in his original commentary on the issue. I hope this now puts this issue to rest. Cedars 09:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the definition (etymology para) on the page needs altering because it specifically mentions it has to be 2 way comms!--Light current 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Cedars 15:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Layout & organisation

I think this page needs to be organised as a summary page--Light current 14:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. Cedars 01:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not?--Light current 01:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There's simply no reason to. Telecommunication is a core topic, so the article should stand alone. The article was built over several months during which time no dissent was expressed over its direction. I am open to listening to ideas for change, but huge changes are probably not helpful. Cedars 03:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. Hmmm! Is getting rather large tho isnt it?--Light current 20:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

Very nice article--it seems to have been waiting altogether too long to be reviewed! It looks very good to me. The only thing that seems slightly odd is the way that the lead sentence of the second paragraph seems to have very little to do with the rest of the paragraph. When that is fixed, there'll be nothing stopping it from passing. MLilburne 11:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to think about giving that second paragraph a section of its own, in fact. I'm not entirely sure it belongs in the lead. MLilburne 11:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason satellite communications are not mentioned at all? Seems like a pretty important part in general communication systems these days. - Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.152.20.33 (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead image

Hi all,

The lead image was contributed by another user and I think it really livens up an article that would otherwise have no lead image. Please consider leaving it in place. Or, if you have a different opinion, discuss it here.

Cedars 05:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the lead image serves no purpose. No information is contained in either the picture or its associated caption. It is not the case that any image is better than no image. THis is not a magazine!--Light current 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case I feel it benefits the aesthetics of the article. I will try to modify the caption to make it more relevant to the article. But since you have no problem with having no lead image, does that mean we can remove both images from the electrical engineering article? Cedars 10:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No those images are informative. THis one isnt--Light current 15:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Telecommunications regulation

I think it's important to have a small section on the regulation of telecommunications activities or (if it already exists somewhere else in Wikipedia) at least a link to a page on that subject. Telecommunications activities were opened to competition in the 1990s and the resulting regulation (eg break-up of AT&T in the US, creation of national regulators in the European Union) is a major event in telecommunications history which allowed today's mobile and Internet explosions.

Probably also a section on major telecommunications operators (fixed, mobile, vertically integrated, horizontally integrated...). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.115.41.103 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Volume

I'd be interested in having an idea about the volume of calls and emails made in the United States. Brian Pearson 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this would be interesting data - especially when considering not only the US but looking at such information from a global perspective. Does someone know any relevant sources that deal with such a matter? Winston.PL 20:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Satellites

Is this article somehow missing any mention of communications satellites? (sdsds - talk) 08:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If there was a purposeful exclusion, it may be because communications satellites are just relay stations in effect. There's mention of relay stations, but no direct link to a broader article. The "microwave radio relay" article, that "relay station" is redirected to, mentions satellites, but doesn't cover direct current relay stations that were used for morse code telegraph. Perhaps it should be renamed and expanded to at least include the history of the broader subject. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice

NOTE: Source material from this article was used in the article Canadian sovereignty. I'm in the process right now of giving all appropriate editors due credit. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

TelecommunicationS

Is there a good reason why this article is not titled "telecommunications"? Mojodaddy (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty

I have started a section on sovereignty. Per the aforementioned discussion this section was copied to the article Canadian sovereignty and, might I add (with obvious bias since I wrote this section), appears to be well referenced material. Anyways, just in case, here is another reference which indicates the importance of this subject for our article telecommunication. I believe the section on sovereignty meets the requirements for inclusion because it specifically addresses telecommunications. Currently though, it is focused on Canada. In fact main article may be found under Canadian sovereignty. I have also considered the article Canadian telecommunication. However per, WP:CFORK, I believe it is important to maintain this information here. Also, the information we have in this article is a slightly abridged (which would be conform to Wikipedia's policies on content forking). I am willing to shorten it some more if necessary, however, I do not believe the information should be removed. Furthermore, please consider adding information for you own country and continuing the development of the article per WP:DUE and Wikipedia:POV#Biased_writing which, the later, states "Of course any article can be "unbalanced" because contributors have more knowledge of, or are more interested in, particular aspects of a subject than in other aspects. This is not "wrong", but making such an article more balanced is encouraged. For example, suppose there is an article about highways that is mostly about the US. A German who encounters this should not complain about Americocentrism, but alter the article to approach the subject from a wider perspective: what can be said about highways in general, that applies worldwide? Begin the article with this, and then discuss the specific variations in different countries." Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two pence; whilst telecoms may be relevant to Canadian sovereignty (I don't know the specifics), it doesn't automatically follow that Canadian sovereignty is relevant to telecoms. The link seems tenuous, at best, as the only justification seems to be due to the flowery language used in the act. This material just feels out of place here.

Whilst I understand the point about geographic bias that you raise, at the moment the structure of the section implies that Canada is somehow a unique and special case in this regard, whereas in all likelihood, this is nothing out of the ordinary. However, finding any equivalent for any other country is likely to be a tough task! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there is probably some room for discussion of government and telecommunication in the article but, if we are to add such a section, we need to start by looking at examples from across the world not focusing on one particular country. You'll have to forgive me but I'm still not convinced that discussion of Canadian sovereignty is appropriate for an article like this. Cedars (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. The material does feels out of place, but only because we lack a more global perspective. We should be making references to other countries and the world. I would agree that the section on Canadian sovereignty would most likely find it's niche if we did this. If need be, it could even be cut down to as little as 5 to 10 words. Whereas: we could state: "Telecommunications has as significant impact on some countries sovereignty. Canada for example...." Then another example "NATO"... then perhaps "Africa"... (Further details could be in the other "main" articles). note: I was reading some material on NATO, communications and there are some policies regarding the protection of communications for a countries and there sovereignty. (see NATO reference in next section bellow). Here is a pear reviewed presentation titled Telecommunications, politics, economics, and national sovereignty: A new game. All you have to do is look a little to add a world persepctive. Once this is done, I'm sure you will be convinced that the presentation of Canadian sovereignty is appropriate for an article like this. In the mean time. I will consider removal of Canadian content. But I'm not happy. 1) because, working on the government may be distraction. (I do concede, it may actually work though). 2) because it feels like a bias and I always though it was up to other editors to add their local content. 3) Well... I have my bias too and want to keep Canada content too! Anyways, it is better to have a wider perspective: "what can be said about highways in general, that applies worldwide?" is a question I ask myself and have applied as : "What can be said about telecomunications and sovereignty in general, that applies worldwide?". Thank you again. --CyclePat (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

New section "Telecommunication and Government"

Hey everybody,

By popular demand, I think we're going to add a new section "Telecommunication and Government"/"Telecommunication and Regulation". I've tried to write this section before but not got very far. Regulation will definitely be an important part, particularly licensing of the spectrum. How different jurisdictions deal with cabling for telecommunication could also be included. Maybe also what goes into laying a submerged cable in international waters mixed with a little history on the issue. And even what goes into launching a satellite. I'm open to ideas and thanks to CyclePat we've got this interesting tidbit on the Canadian telecommunication system:

“ Following "a Royal Commission that was concerned about the growing American influence in radio." the Broadcasting Act, which received royal assent on June 23, 1936 (Statutes of Canada, 1 Edward VIII, Chap. 24) established the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). ”

I'm hoping we can write a really great section here on the talk page then transfer it to the main article. So let's start brainstorming what we want to include and maybe even draw up an initial draft. Cedars (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

To kick off the brainstorming: Nipplegate, e-democracy - we don't have to include all of these but some off-beat topics could probably spice up the section. Cedars (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see:

• http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispc3/doc/S03-WSISPC3-DOC-0002!!MSW-E.doc
• Nato; Improve communications for sovereignty. http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b911108a.htm
• The Role of the International Telecommunication Union: sovereignty: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=B59F89EBB1D561C39C7A6BD3EF5F161E.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=62975 --CyclePat (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Google search for "telecommunications+sovereignty+-Canada"
• Does a phone network = sovereignty? Lebanon and Hezbollah May 8, 2008
• Interesting perspective regarding CUBA and sovereignty (questionable source but interesting)
• Costa Rica some info on sovereignty.
• [books.google.ca/books?isbn=1580530192... Some nations have been reluctant to liberalize telecommunications, ... ]
• Erosion of National Sovereignty by 21st Century Technology. etc,,, etc...

Okay, but let's not get hung up on just sovereignty we want to talk as broadly as possible about the interplay between telecommunication and government. Cedars (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

etymology section

I've removed the box from the etymology section to help expand. This was however reverted approx. 2 months later. Please see the edit summaries between the myself (CyclePat) and Cedars. (Here is a direct link of User:Cedars reverting my change). --CyclePat (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In short my edit summary explains WP:WTUT which states "Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table. Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, arranging a group of links, or other strictly visual features. It makes the article harder to edit for other Wikipedians, and is not really what tables were designed to do." --CyclePat (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what the article you mentioned says, I'd rather not have the etymology interrupt the flow of the article. The etymology section was already moved once by another author. Might we just leave it as a sidebox, if this is not possible we could put it to a vote? Cedars (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually WP:WTUT is wikipedia guideline, not an article, but that's not really important. I believe there are more reasons not to have a table then there are to have one. ie.: legibility, ease of expansion in editing, standard formating throughout wikipedia, etc. I'm also surprised you would recommend jumping to a vote. Voting, I believe can be inherently "evil", as discussed at the guidelines for voting. In fact, if you listen carefully, I only have a couple of issues, and if you're honest about it, you may find that they are quite reasonable. Hence, moving to vote at this point, I believe is pre-emptive, would most likely be counter productive and make me hate your guts. Of course this is speculativelly speaking, but, one reason I would hate you is because we could miss, as discussed at WP:VOTE, "...the best solution." May I recommend that, one exercise we could consider is highlighting the Pros and Cons.

Voting

"...can be inherently "evil", as discussed at the guidelines for voting."

For example, you could highlight the benefits of a table and then the cons of having it inline with the text. I could do visversa. With that we could come to a happy concensus. For example: One reason the table is not good is because 1) it's tucked away on the right side. (solution: Maybe we could center it). 2) The text is small and is difficult to read (solution: make the text bigger). 3) A table is less motivating to edit and expanding it's content can be difficult. (solution: Keep the table, but also have the information repeated within the article's body (as you might see in a regular news article or the encyclopedia "The New Book of Knowledge") ie.: (Please see the table I just added on the right titled Voting) 4) Do we agree that no more content should be added to the box? How do we add more information and when will we ultimatelly have to remove the box because the section is too big? Or will we repeat the information? --CyclePat (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Key concepts

"The shaping of a signal to convey information is known as modulation." This sentence is misleading. Is the signal modulated; or is the carrier wave modulated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.123.49 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the current wording is reasonable for an encyclopedia. A reader may have a vague understanding of the word "signal", while "carrier" is an unnecessarily technical distinction. By definition, the carrier is the signal that is modulated. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree, and maintain that my original post is correct. The current wording is misleading. It implies the signal, or message, is changed. I think it should say, "The loading of a signal onto the carrier wave is known as modulation. The carrier wave is modified." 70.166.123.49 (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)