Talk:Vodafone/Archives/2012

Images

Vodafone partners and affiliates image should be updated.

For Serbia, there's VIP Mobile (Mobilkom Austria) network operator which is pratner with Vodafone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.185.125.158 (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Vodafone in Europe

Vodafone necessarily operate in all the countries shown. In several of them it has a licensing arrangement with other independent operators. If it's not called Vodafone then it probably isn't a wholly owned part of Vodafone (although it's quite possible that Vodafone is a part owner - as it is with Verizon for example). This is certainly true for Swisscom and SFR for example. Mpntod 19:12, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

This is a pretty weak article. Yes, it should point out that Voda owns 44 percent of SFR (and wants the rest, having only failed to acquire it due to a quirk of French corporate law), 25 percent of Swisscom, and so on. The lists of operators don't tell us much. It also has partner arrangements with some networks that license the branding (such as Smartone-Vodafone and og Vodafone). The company would like a brand presence in the US but has an unhappy though lucrative arrangement with Verizon, tried to buy AT&T Wireless, and so on.

I might add some of this detail, if I have time. --ProhibitOnions 18:09, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

--- I have changed the infobox-template to indicate the some percentages + names for the join ventures. I haven't done the whole thing - Just testing the waters... Comments? JoshFarron (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC) ---

The whole article needs to be rewritten. At the moment there is nothing on stategy or competitive position and the article doesn't make it clear what the key developments in Vodafone's history have been; Airtouch isn't even mentioned, and that deal was fundamental enough for Vodafone to change its name to Vodafone Airtouch for a while! I'm going to make a start by adding a finance section. Carina22 12:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Good work, and I'll add more history when I have time. I have removed the recent Controversies section, which someone added near the top of the article, and which is very POV. It was evidently written by a UK user with an axe to grind, as it mentions the likes of Oftel and Who Wants to be a Millionaire without any context. ProhibitOnions 13:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You can either regard the controversies as POV or simple fact. I have checked the sources, it is fact. It makes no difference whether there is an axe to grind or not - if this is something Wiki readers should know, it should be included. What do you mean by context? This is the context within which the company operates. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context . I don't know what ProhibitOnions' connections with Vodafone are (if there are any), but you cannot use Wikipedia as another advertising stream. It is an encyclopedia. All is relevant. See entries on other companies which have committed misdemeanors, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen . 21:42, 18 October 2005 (GMT)

It may not be POV if these are factual statements, but the current complaints section is overkill. Vodafone is a large company and it is expected to have issues with various authorities. If you cite the references for these complaints (e.g. newspaper stores, link to the Ofcom website etc) then the addition can remain in a smaller form - about three lines. --PhilipO 20:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sadly two of these references are print only - so by your rules are not worthy of inclusion. It all sounds rather peremptory. I think Wikipedia can be a force for good - but it's certainly not worth my time reinstating other people's pro-corporate deletions the whole time, so I shall say goodbye.

Another victory for Vodafone.

• I disagree. --PhilipO 21:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

21:12, 18 October 2005 (GMT)

Citing a print source is fine. Wikipedia is a intended to be an encyclopedia, not a consumer complaints website or a corporate advertising medium. Complaints are accepted but they need to be cited and generally should be from an reptuable source. Joe Davis's community newspaper for example is unlikely to be a reputable source but something from the Guardian for example would be... Nil Einne 13:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

United States in Europe?

The current revision has the united states listed in the europe section (aswell as the americas). I havent fixed this incase it was intended, but it seems like it should be removed to me? PaulLakin 23:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proportional customers

Can someone please explain "proportional" Vodafone customers in Paragraph 2, and how they relate to the numbers posted? In this mix of numbers, the author links to a British site that states simply there's a 179 million subscriber base. Why not say straight up how many subscribers there are, like the China Mobile wiki entry, which says 200 million?

DonL

I am presuming that it is on the basis of holding in the network operator whose subscriber numbers are listed. Can someone identify that?

Venkatesh 11.52 AM IST (+0530 GMT)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the article reads proportional customers as of 26th January "2007", but the reference links to an article last updated January 2006. So surely this information is a year out of date?

212.219.27.120 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What about 50%

The article suggests if it owns more then 50% it's a subsidiary, less then 50% it's an affliate, 0% a partner. But what about 50% (joint owner-ship or 50% with small partners)? I suspect it's an affliate but then again, Vodacom is evidently going to be branded Vodafone even though it's a joint ownership... Nil Einne 13:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll see about that (note that Vodafone does not own a majority of Vodafone Fiji), but AFAIK Voda has already made overtures to Telkom to buy a controlling stake. I think Vodafone is less averse to significant minority shareholders in developing countries, possibly for political reasons.

I'm also curious whether Vodafone Japan will retain the Vodafone name (a la Vodafone Sweden) once it no longer belongs to Vodafone; becoming a franchise (another category, though not one that Voda currently recognizes). ProhibitOnions 16:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Vodafone Logo Rollout

I can see there is a lot of movement here to re-write the article. Would you consider adding a section on the progress of rolling out the new 3D logo (and 3G services)? - just a suggestion. The only details of those are in the history section which can be confusing.

I have removed the suggestion that the name is VOice DAta FONE. Whe nit launche dit was an analogue only cell phone firm. There was no mobile data and I very much doubt management envisioned it.

• Firstly, please remember to sign your comments using 4 tildes (~). Secondly looking at Vodafone's offical website, specifically http://www.vodafone.com/article/0,3029,CATEGORY_ID%253D30102%2526LANGUAGE_ID%253D0%2526CONTENT_ID%253D231491,00.html? it states that in 1982 "Vodafone is chosen as the name of the network, to reflect the provision of voice and data services over mobile phones." Data was added in 1987 with AA Roadwatch and Financial Times CityLine. Vodafone launched a digital GSM service in 1991. Therefore they had data in the analogue-only era and so it is likely the name does indeed stand for VOice DAta FONE. I'm putting it back in the article, citing the above source. Alexj2002 11:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Without revealing to much info - i worked for Vodafone for many years- during induction we were told specifically where the name came from. and vo da fone is indeed correct.Ukbn2 23:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right. When Voda started out it the "Voda" part was applied to Vodapager as well, which was obviously a data service. (Look at the company's annual reports prior to 1991, available at www.vodafone.com; the concern was styled Voda - Racal Telecom.)  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 10:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

When Vodaphone launched, the first wide-area TCP/IP network was still cutting its teeth under the wing of ARPANET, hence, no remnants of Vodafone's founding exist on the Internet. Without physically holding one of their partners' brochures from 1984, it's unlikely that any "proof" will exist about the origin of Vodafone's name, with the exception of what Vodafone provides, themselves. Were it to actually exist, it's even more unlikely that that proof will still be in print or circulation (read: accessible by everyone who wishes to verify Wikipedia's sources) after 26 years. Even the New York Times will cite Microsoft, or Bill Gates, or one of M$'s current employees, if they state the origin of the name of the company. It's usually the company's timeline that is used to mark milestones, and these are often republished by "reputable sources" with nothing more than a different graphic. I'm going to remove the 'need' for a non-primary source. You won't find one, in this case, and it is within policies to cite Vodafone for the origin of the Vodaphone's name. Were I to become notable enough, I'd certainly hope I was cited on why I prefer to use my middle name with the public rather than my given name. If anyone has the urge to tag it again, either see WP:TRUTH or cite your alternate reputable source. Unnecessary templates due to a difference in opinion versus published data from an acceptable primary source make Wikipedia look cluttered and unprofessional. So does a single sentence with more tags than facts. O sibili, si ergo! fortibus es inero. O nobili! demis trux! Si vats inem: caus en dux. (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition, there is nothing questionable about a company "reflect[ing] a provision of voice and data services over mobile phones" in 1984, considering how uncommon mobile phones were at that time. Voice and data services would have been higher priorities. The takeoff of the industry is moot. You are trying to disprove something after the fact because it looks weird in retrospect. So does a theremin, but one wouldn't argue against its potential to be used as a proximity detector, just because it is now more commonly used as a musical instrument. If this is the only argument you have for putting up a better source template, might I suggest you edit an article in which you are more knowledgeable about the subject matter? O sibili, si ergo! fortibus es inero. O nobili! demis trux! Si vats inem: caus en dux. (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Chris Gent

To the person who removed the reference to Gent, please read Chris Gent. Shouldn't this resource be consistent in itself?! 86.7.208.240 23:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

List of CEOs

How about a section that lists the CEOs of Vodafone since incorporation?

Venkatesh 11.55 AM IST (+0530 GMT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Venkatesh.sridhar (talk • contribs) 06:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

A suggestion for the Vodafone page

Okay, just something that I think could make it easier for people not familiar with Vodafone. Would it be okay if someone put in a section on the main services that Vodafone offers globally, using the UK as an example? -Daniel Blanchette 21:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Need a section listung control codes?

How about listing the control codes e.g.

• 1. 100# to ask for the mobiles nymber
  2. 1345# to ask for remaining PAYG credit

1210 to turn off voicemail CanOfWorms (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Today Vodafone took over Hutch in a big deal; V bid 19 bn $ for hutch. Hutch was the 4th postion in india. Kittu 12:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

What was the reason for removing my Trivia? (that vodafone has no coverage in Madhya Pradesh, the Indian state in which its CEO was born?) Tri400 02:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. This seems like interesting and appropriate content. Shax 19:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Trade union advert

There was a blatent advert for the Connect trade union at the bottom of the summary that read "Vodafone's UK workers are represented by Connect, The trade union for professionals in communications". I don't know who added it but I have removed it. No propaganda on Wikipedia please! Shax 19:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the thing at the bottom?

At the bottom of the page, the tab that says Vodafone Group has a paragraph which reads:

"Criticisms Carphone Warehouse staffs, as a norm, verbally ask any customer who enters into a mobile phone contract to provide a landline telephone number. The number will then be promptly switched from BT to TalkTalk without the customers even knowing it. Certain organisations have complained about the practice. Carphone Warehouse's response is that this constitute a binding contract though they do return the line to the original service provider, i.e BT."

I don't understand why that is there... Fatla00 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User: Jnason

Why does User: Jnason keep adding statements similar to what I have just deleted which are not referenced and are not accurate? For example, today I removed "is very surprising as at the time of taking the name, Vodafone provided only analogue voice services, and had no knowledge of, or services for, data.)" Surely Vodafone had paging when they were first set up, which is a form or DAta? Darkieboy236 07:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

- answer because Reference 1 is invalid, and the statement is correct. There was a separate company Vodata which was for data (mostly SMS), a separate Paging unit Vodapage, and a separate X25 unit.. I worked for these companies. Please update Reference 1 before you make any future accusations. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodafear (talk • contribs) 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Vodafear 05:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Info added to Wiki needs to be verifiable. The info that User: Jnason appears to have entered was not reference or sourced, this is why it primarily was removed. Furthermore, the info did not meet Wiki standards. Also, Vodafone state on their website - 1982 The Racal Electronics Group wins its bid for the private sector UK Cellular licence. It sets up the Racal Telecomms Division and names the new network ‘Vodafone’ to reflect the provision of voice and data services over mobile phones. The correct link to this has been added, the previous link having become obsolete due to Vodafone's new website. Any discussion should take place on this page, not on the actual entry page. Darkieboy236 09:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User: Darkieboy236

Please see the comments in the paragraph above. Reference 1 is not valid. Jnason 17:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vodafone Logo.jpg

Image:Vodafone Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill Morrow

I've added a short note about Bill Morrow in the European history section. From what I can read online, Bill Morrow had a large involvement with the company, and I think there could be more references to him, especially in regard to the Japanese devision, in the article. Please let me know if anyone is willing to work with me, to put more Bill Morrow references it =) Lex Kitten 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Separate Vodafone UK page

I noticed from looking at the infobox template at the bottom of the page that most of the Vodafone networks (ie. in each country) have separate pages. I created a brief one of the German net. BUT... The the tag Vodafone UK redirects BACK to this page - breaking the consistency of one page per Network. Does anyone want to take a crack at writing an brief article for Vodafone UK that we can expand upon later? JoshFarron (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have created the page. You can continue working on it.--Dima1 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Vodafone Essar

I don't get it, how can Vodafone Essar be both a Majority Owned network in India, as well as a Minority Owned network? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

-- Because the minority-owned network listed is not Vodafone Essar, but AirTel, where Vodafone stills owns 4.4% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.140.125 (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is Caribbean listed?

Did Vodafone buyout Digicel at some point? As far as I know, the only 2 mobile operators in the (English-speaking) Caribbean is 1) Digicel and 2) Cable and Wireless' bMobile unit. Cingular, (a.k.a. AT&T Wireless) was the third mobile companies in much of these countries but they sold out their Caribbean units to Digicel. In Barbados, a fourth license is/was?? held by Sunbeach Communications but they ran into financial trouble and were later bought out by a Middle East billionaire after having a disastrous listing on the London Stock Exchange Most of these countries have the third spare license since nobody ever stepped up to acquire the vacant license that AT&T/Cingular held. Jamaica too has either 4 or 5 wireless companies. The two fore-mentioned plus Miphone, Centennial Wireless (Which I think might have sold their stake in Jamaica due to stiff competition)... Is Vodafone planning to buy Digicel or are they planning to build cell phone networks in these countries? Currently it says "No ownership" over these countries. Shouldn't this article be more clear? As in, one part of the article about partners, and another part about actual assets holdings instead of mixing them both together? -- CaribDigita (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing the company in "Canada" would be the company that Verizon is partnered with in Canada? Because Vodafone's website doesn't say anything about Canada.

• Vodafone's website.
• Verizon's roaming programme in Canada CaribDigita (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

T-Mobile + Orange to merge UK operations.

They expect it to be a done deal in November?

• Orange, T-Mobile to unite in U.K. merger

"Orange and T-Mobile are to merge their British operations to create the U.K.'s largest mobile carrier, their parent companies said Tuesday.

The as-yet-unnamed joint venture will have a combined customer base of about 28.4 million people, or 37 percent of the market, **with the deal expected to complete in November**. Orange chief executive Tom Alexander will be chief executive of the new company, with T-Mobile UK chief executive Richard Moat as chief operating officer. " CaribDigita (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why No 'Criticisms' Section?

This needs to be added. Particularly to include the £6bn tax avoidance scam Vodafone pulled off in the UK, as described in this article:

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&issue=1273 Vorpaul (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To add to this, there are now nationwide protests going on in the UK, closing many Vodafone stores, by people demanding that Vodafone pay the avoided tax:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/29/vodafone-cuts-tax-protest

Vorpaul (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments of Vodaboy1

The opening summary about Vodafone is out of date, the financial figures need updating and some of the claims made are no longer valid. Having already edited this, apparently the citations do not match. The figures can be found in the Vodafone Annual Report where I cited the link. As a representative of Vodafone I feel that this information should be changed.

Let me know of any objections you have to me re-editing the opening paragraphs. (Vodaboy1 (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)).

(I have moved the above comments of Vodaboy1 from the top of the page to this new section to keep the page ordered).Rangoon11 (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Vodafone annual report was published in March and some of the citations used in the article are more recent than that. So far as I am aware Vodafone remains the largest mobile communications in the world by revenue (the citation in the article is from July), do you have more recent information that contradicts that?

Looking at the About us section of the Vodafone website [1] I see that it now says that Vodafone has 'more than 341 million customers' and operates in 'more than 30 countries', with partner networks 'in over 40 countries'. I will update those numbers in the article based on this information, which I assume is more up to date than the annual report (please let me know if you disagree).

I expect that the market capitalisation information in the lead is likely to now be out of date. I personally don't feel that such information should be in the lead as it is constantly changing and requires frequent updating. I will start a thread on here proposing deletion of it.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Rangoon11, I am not objecting to not having the market capitalisation figure in there. However, if you look at the Annual Report which actually was published in June not March, on the opening page it clearly states Vodafone is 'one of the world's largest mobile communications companies by revenue'. The Wiki page should reflect this.

It looks like 31 March to me: [2]. The 'largest by revenue' information is more specific than 'one of the largest' and is cited from a recent and reliable source. Unless you have an equally reliable source or more recent source which contradicts that information then it should remain as is in the article.

On a separate note I just noticed that Vodafone pubished their half-results a few days ago and I will reference the subscribers numbers to that rather than the 'About us' section of the web site, since that will enable an exact date for the total to be given. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Rangoon11, The correct figure is 343 million as shown on page 41 of the Half Year results [3] You are probably referring to the proportionate figure which is no longer valid as it does not include 100pc of Vodafone's controlled companies customers' i.e. (Vodafone Italy which is 23pc owned by Verizon Wireless). It should reference the Group figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodaboy1 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying to the above comment before, which I have only just noticed. There are two methods used to calculate the number of subscribers in the Half Year results. So far as I understand, Vodafone have historically emphasised the subscriber number as calculated using the 'proportionate' method of calculation in their literature and communications. Either method has arguments for and against in terms of being the most accurate number. It so happens that at present the totals calculated by each method are quite similar, although that need not be the case depending on if Vodafone sells or acquires assets in the future. I welcome the comments of others on whether they feel the proportionate or group methods of calculation to be more appropriate in this article. For the benefit of others the definitions (as stated in the Half Year results) are:

'Group customers represent subsidiaries on a 100% basis and joint ventures (being Italy, Poland, Australia and Fiji) based on the Group’s equity interests. Proportionate customers are based on the Group’s equity interests in subsidiaries, joint ventures and associates. Further details ofthe Group’s equity interests are provided in notes 12 to 14 of the consolidated financial statements included within the Group’s 2010 annual report.'Rangoon11 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms - Vittorio Colao's comments on Egypt

As a representative of Vodafone, I would like to replace the final sentence of the Criticisms section. It currently reads: Vodafone Group CEO Vittorio Colao said his company was cooperating fully with the totalitarian government. This is an unfair interpretation of Vittorio Colao's statement referenced in the WSJ article. Therefore, I would like to replace the sentence with: Vodafone Group CEO Vittorio Colao said the company was obliged by law to comply with the instructions of the Egyptian government. I will make the change on Monday but before I do, I welcome your comments or objections on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.205.122.152 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Vodafone Global Enterprise

As Vodafone Global Enterprise is a significant portion of Vodafone's business, it should merit its own section on the Vodafone page. This section used to be on the page but for some reason it was no longer included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodaboy1 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 15 August 2011

I had to revert the new text because it appears to be a copyright violation from here. If the text was originally at Wikipedia, it might have been copied to an external site, and therefore can be reinstated here. However, that would require some research which I won't attempt until someone asserts that is the case. Also, the new text had one reference: http://enterprise.vodafone.com, yet that page has nothing specific that I can see which verifies the information added to the article. Something independent from the company would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

enterprise.vodafone.com is the site for Vodafone Global Enterprise. All related information is present at the site, maybe not on the homepage but within the site structure. I have also tried to fix the potential copyright issue by editing the entry with our own produced literature. In order to avoid COI I have taken all the sentences/paragraphs that are not based on facts. The resulting text has been rejected for COI which we don't understand as the information presented is owned by Vodafone and verifiable. Rangoon11, Could you perhaps advise on how we can present this info?

---

Global Enterprise is a business set up by Vodafone with the sole purpose of handling Vodafone’s multinational clients. It is the high end business to business section of Vodafone group, and acts like an operating country (such as for example Vodafone UK). Devices and services available in any operating country, are available to Global Enterprise customers in the same country, and so Vodafone Global Enterprise are able to offer a wide range of products. Vodafone Global Enterprise have a presence in over 65 countries. Vodafone Global Enterprise was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Newbury, United Kingdom, but does have operatives around the world.

Nick Jeffery leads Vodafone Global Enterprise. He led the creation of Vodafone Global Enterprise in 2007 and continues to define the strategy and operational execution for Vodafone’s relationship with multi-national corporate customers. Global Enterprise have a dedicated group of account managers, at both global and national levels, who look after customers needs, and are supported by pre-sales and technical consultancy teams.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Javierrio (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

For me the wording above which I have reverted the addition of is simply unnecessary, unencyclopedic and/or verbiage. There is certainly the scope to add additional factual content about Vodafone Global Enterprise in this article - for example number of staff, offices, turnover, details of products and services offered - but I see nothing to be gained by the addition of wording such as 'Global Enterprise have a dedicated group of account managers, at both global and national levels, who look after customers needs, and are supported by pre-sales and technical consultancy teams.' or 'and so Vodafone Global Enterprise are able to offer a wide range of products.', this is just empty marketing style waffle and unencyclopedic. The second sentence about Nick Jeffery appears to me to be a vanity detail and unencyclopedic. I have nothing against the addition of a sentece saying 'Vodafone Global Enterprise is currently led by Nick Jeffery' and will add that now.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Worlds largest telecoms company by revenue?

The China Mobile page says otherwise.1812ahill (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

China Mobile is the largest measured by subscribers, Vodafone the largest by revenues (and second-largest by subscribers). The China Mobile article doesn't appear to contradict that, although it is a little unclear.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

History

"In 1980, Sir Ernest Harrison OBE, chairman of Racal Electronics plc's, the UK's largest maker of military radio technology, agreed a deal with Lord Weinstock of General Electric Company plc to allow Racal to access some of GEC's tactical battlefield radio technology. Briefing the head of Racal's military radio division Gerry Whent to drive the company into commercial mobile radio, Whent visited GE's factory in Virginia, USA in 1980."

Is this right? Are you not mixing up GEC (General Electric Company Ltd, British) with GE ( General Electric, American) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.22.247 (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Tax avoidance

This Reuters article suggests a £1bn tax avoidance scandal/scheme involving Vodaphone UK and luxembourg subsidary. It probably deserves some mention in the article. EdwardLane (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Vodafone sent first SMS

I think it should be noted that Vodafone sent the first SMS (Sort message service) text message on 3 December 1992 by 22 year-old engineer, Neil Papworth, who sent "Merry Christmas" from a PC. Under section History 2.2scot24 (talk) 20:07, 03 December 2012 (BST)