Talk:Freedom Mobile

Marketing Department at work on here!!!!!!!

the marketing ho's are on this one.... Be ware written by marketing dept...like the rest of the major companies. They have their drones grinding away....

"Wind has dubbed its calling zones "Wind Home" and "Wind Away", its own network and its roaming networks respectively.

In Canada, Wind Mobile has negotiated with Rogers Wireless to provide roaming services (on their EDGE network), at rates of: - 25¢ per minute for incoming and outgoing calls - 10¢ per 25KB of data usage - 15¢ per outgoing text.

Wind roaming in the United States is done with T-Mobile as of February 12, 2010, at these same rates. This is notably the cheapest US roaming rate available to Canadian subscribers.[22]

For comparison, Rogers, Bell, and Telus all charge $1.45/m (as of May 2010) for voice calls when roaming in the U.S.[23]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.167.113 (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Stores in Ottawa

I am not entirely sure if I would be allowed to add this to the article, but WIND has a store open in Ottawa now, inside a blockbuster on Rideau street. I can't find any proof of it other than the fact that I've been there.

How would I go about adding this information? Tecywiz121 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

They have one on Rideau St and one on Carling. The launch was today at the Rideau location. I already went ahead and added the info. | source Skootles (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

One of my first articles

I know, this is a very brief article. I'm hoping that over the next few weeks, people will come and help make this a top-notch encyclopedic page, and if it's deleted or changed, that can't happen. Please, give it a few weeks to be made better! AllanVS ^{talk contribs} 03:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for making this page! I think you actually made it just as I changed my search query, great timing :P --Pwnage97 (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This article should be merged with the Globalive article.XMan (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this article should not be. That would be like saying, Fido Solutions should be merged with Rogers, or Solo Mobile should be merged with Bell. Wind is a separate subsidiary and this page just needs to be fleshed out. Hence why I put the Wireless Stub tag in. AllanVS ^{talk contribs} 11:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting

This page should redirect from 'WIND mobile'. I'm not sure how to do that, I'm also a wiki newbie. --Pwnage97 (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

phones

I think that phone compatibility will be a major source of confusion for consumers who want to switch to WIND mobile, so we should have more information about that here.

I think there should be two sections:(1) a section listing the phones that WIND will carry (this section will be empty as nothing definitive has been announced yet), and (2) a section listing the phones and devices that are compatible with the WIND network. This section will list all the 3G AWS phones, which isn't very many yet but includes some very prominent phones such as the N900 and the Google Nexus One.

Peacock tag

While I understand the excitment over WIND Mobile, I added the peacecock tag in the Services section because of that line:

"their plans also introduced pricing never before seen in the Canadian wireless market, offering essentially unlimited service for a fraction of the cost of their competitors comparable plans at the time of launch. [9]"

The source is WIND Mobile's website itself, which is anything but a 3rd party, independent source. In my opinion, this line should either be quoted from an independent news source, or deleted. --Gapagos (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The peacock label was removed with no discussion by user 206.248.167.170. I placed it back into the article. --Gapagos (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I just had this addition rolled back on grounds that it was poorly sourced and unencyclopaedic. The paragraph about port blocking is covered and cited by respected legal professor and commentator Michael Geist, who refers back to a Wind blog entry. I would like to know how more authoritative one can get than a law professor.

The bit about poor customer service is more anecdotal but it is corroborated by customers on Wind's own website. Rather than simply rolling back the change, please discuss how it can be reinforced short of a CRTC inquiry. BordenRhodes (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any way to "reinforce" blog or forum postings to meet our standards. Please take a look at our policy on reliable sourcing for further guidance. jæs (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

From WP:RS: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Michael Geist is a law scholar. He studies this stuff for a living. He cites a Wind executive. My first paragraph meets the conditions. You may dispute the second paragraph but there is evidence of what I've written. The "experts" when it comes to matters of reliability and customer service are the users themselves and there are a lot of them who would agree with the second paragraph. Why does this not qualify? BordenRhodes (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the conversation from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Michael_Geist I think an option is to tag the section appropriately and keep the trends in customer satisfaction and net neutrality. Engaging the community to source and refine them will improve the article. I fail to see why reporting these issues will compromise the integrity of the article. BordenRhodes (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, our policy is not "leave unreliable sources in the article and just tell folks they're unreliable." I also just removed your cherry picked attempt to reinsert some — any — criticism. I'm beginning to worry about why you're so determined to include unsourced or poorly sourced consumer complaints in this article, no matter what our policies say or what other editors tell you. jæs (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The added criticism about Wind's network reliability is not coatracked according to the definition you provided. First, the information in the Globe article is not nominally related to Wind. The article is about Wind and its products. The criticism I am adding is about Wind's products. Secondly, two sentences are hardly an attempt to skew the article one way or another, especially since, in the article, Wind is quoted admitting that their network is unreliable. If NPOV is a concern, then balance my evidence with counter arguments that Wind reliability is perfect and Wind is not port blocking. You won't find those articles, though.

I think criticising Wind is the real problem, not the method in which I am doing it. I am meeting the reliability requirements by citing a trusted academic and a newspaper article which both quote company representatives. It's impossible to get more reliable than that. Likewise, I am not bogging the article down in a tenuous rant under the guise of an article about Wind. I am adding two small paragraphs in an appropriately-named heading citing reliable sources which have gotten the company's agreement. What is far more distressing and suspect is that instead of trying to improve the criticism, it is being edit-warred out.

A better way to stop me from contributing is to direct me to policy which explains what sort of criticism of a product or company is acceptable on Wikipedia and explain why my criticism does not apply.

I also do not appreciate the insinuation that I have a hidden agenda or that I am ignoring the policy when I have edited my contributions to adhere to them more closely. I do not appreciate having my contributions singled out for removal when parts of the History section are unsourced.BordenRhodes (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Borden, the Geist blog is probably ok in this case and the Globe and Mail article definitely is. That said, the Globe article seemed to be summarized somewhat one sidedly here - the article portrays the problems as growing pains while here they seem more like entrenched issues. TastyCakes (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fair. Wind does say that they are working on the reliably issues and the wording should reflect that whilst still preserving that it is, if even temporarily, a significant issue. May I re-add? BordenRhodes (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You can for me, might be a good idea to wait a day or so to see if jaes has a response first though... TastyCakes (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Globe & Mail is certainly a reliable source, although I agree with TastyCakes that the interpretation here didn't accurately reflect the overall content of that article. I still feel the Geist microblog entry is not substantial enough to be a reliable source; as WP:SPS points out: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." I would really need to see some support for the reliability of the Geist entry at the thread BordenRhodes began at WP:RS/N before any content sourced to Geist goes back into the article. jæs (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I think it makes sense to sort it out at RS/N. TastyCakes (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I was trying to state that Wind is blocking ports in its internet service contrary to understandings of net neutrality and its advertising as an 'unlimited' Internet service. What is being debated here? Wind admits that it's blocking ports here: "High level, there was no plot to limit specific applications. The decisions we’ve made up until now were essentially for 3 reasons... Those are all valid reasons for managing our ports and applications, but we also did miss some things and we focused on the 'average' customer." The topic is also covered here, here, and on the consumer support forums. Any idiot Wind subscriber, like me, can also attest, from trying to use certain Internet services, that they are still blocked.

I admit that my references aren't from peer-challenged, cross-sectional, New-York-Times-Best-Selling, Nobel-Prize-winning dissertations. But why am I being singled out when other unreferenced material is kept in? Is the dispute seriously that there's no evidence to support that Wind Mobile has been blocking ports? I cannot help but wonder when I'm being so vigorously challenged over an effort to add product criticism whether there is a vested interest working against me.

Since we agree that the point about network unreliability can stay in the article, the correct procedure, under Wikipedia policy, is to reword what I wrote to make it more neutral if it was not perceived as such instead of just cutting it out and accusing me of incompetence and dishonesty. Other articles, such as the article on KDE 4, mention the instability of the 4.0 release even though KDE4 has improved since then so I see no reason why Wind's difficulties in stabilising its network cannot be mentioned likewise. BordenRhodes (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think if Wind is still blocking certain applications, that should be mentioned in the article, but we need to find a source saying what it's blocking (and why). Neither the Geiss site nor the Globe article seem to address that.

As to keeping in criticism of things that have been fixed, I agree to a point. But we should be thinking of this article as long term, in a year you might read "during the first few months of operation some commonly used applications were blocked" and be excused for thinking that that's trivial information the article could do without.

Personally, I think all of this could be wrapped up in one little blurb about startup troubles for the company, saying there were service problems and some common applications were blocked. Maybe the bit about the number 2 guy leaving could be included there too. If some applications are still blocked and that can be documented, I think that should be included as well, but probably in a different section, probably the "Services" section tagged on to this line: Although technically unlimited, Wind does impose a "soft-cap" on its data plans. Wind's "Fair Usage Policy" states that if a user is to exceed 5GB of bandwidth during the current billing cycle, that their data connectivity may be slowed down or "throttled".[12] This is to allow reliable service to all customers. TastyCakes (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That information will be hard to get since Wind won't readily divulge what it's blocking. Emperically, though, Wind continues to block the BitTorrent and Limewire protocols. I know this, Wind users have complained about it, it's drawn the attention of a digital rights advocate, and yet nothing 'reliable' has been written about it. Is there some way to mention that Wind violates net neutrality without having to enumerate the ports?

Secondly, the Wind network continues to be unreliable, so the Globe article is current in that respect. Again, it's common knowledge to anyone familiar with Wind - employees included - but it hasn't been written up in great detail. The proposed solution to mention it in passing seems fair and maybe someone who can be more bothered to expand upon it will go through the trouble of commissioning a research project on it. I think the wording should reflect that it is still a significant current problem.

What bothers me is that this is an 'Emperor's Clothes' problem: everyone knows that the emperor's naked but the emperor's not publishing the fact so everyone has to go about in denial. jæs has been using technicality after technicality and literal readings of Wikipedia policy to try to keep me from writing about this although it is never suggested that what I'm saying is false - only that my citations are insuffucient. I want to debate how this information would best be incorporated into the article and how to research the issues further rather than continually putting me on the spot to find conclusive evidence before the information can even be used. BordenRhodes (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the thing is Jaes is correct that we can't use our own observations as evidence in an article, that qualifies as original research which will be deleted by someone sooner or later under the rules so you might as well not try. Unfortunately, some kind of reliable source must be found if you want that information included.

The thing that strikes me about the "net-neutrality" issue is that there are a lot of very thorough wireless carrier articles on Wikipedia (like AT&T Mobility, Verizon Wireless, Vodafone etc) and although I know for a fact they block certain applications (Skype for sure, bittorrent and limewire probably) there is nothing mentioned in those articles about that. I don't think it's out of the ordinary for mobile companies to block the types of programs that remain blocked on Wind, do you agree? If you do, why do you think it deserves mention here but not on any of the other articles? TastyCakes (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, and it seems to me that it is a more pertinent topic for, say, network neutrality, where the overall issues within the broadband industry in North America and elsewhere would be discussed. The exception would be for carriers like, say Comcast, which has received widespread media and legal attention for its opposition to network neutrality. Wind Mobile, on the other hand, hasn't staked a particularly notable position on network neutrality so far as I can tell, hence the lack of reliable coverage, and hence trying to source something on the topic to random online forum posts strikes me as problematic per both WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. jæs (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to have to let someone else finish this matter. It's not healthy for me to continue pursuing this. BordenRhodes (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Plan listings necessary?

I see that my previous edit has been reverted, so I will post here. Why are Wind's plans listed here in such detail when the plans of other companies are not, such as Rogers or AT&T? It seems more like having the plans listed so extensively only clutters the page and adds little to the public record about this company. 70.71.167.232 (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been several IPs repeatedly deleting the entire section, without significant discussion. I have restored it as their actions have now been opposed by two independent editors. I suggest that the IPs state their concerns here, so that we can develop an appropriate way to put forth the information, rather than simply deleting it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Second person, here. My point is simply this, what value do the plan listings add to the article at large? They are subject to change at a moment's notice and no other carrier that is listed on Wikipedia has their plans detailed in full. They clutter up the page and detract from the information about the company. The point of an Encyclopedia is not to list every plan that a carrier offered, ever, users should be directed to the website for up to date information. If there was precedence for the plans to be listed, I would be fine with that, but there isn't. I just don't see the necessity of having them on the Wind page and nobody has countered with an explanation as to why they feel they should be listed. 81.89.48.128 (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Posting once again to query as to why the page for Wind is different from all other major carriers. I don't see what value the plan listings contribute to an encyclopedia listing. Their relevance is fleeting and nobody has addressed my points for deletion. Katiker (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, the material should be trimmed and rewritten as prose; to date, people have simply been deleting it altogether, which is not appropriate. --Ckatz^chat

_spy 06:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the advert tag, as I did with Mobi, because they both sound like adverts for the companies. I'm sure that other companies pages DO NOT have plan or headset prices/lists. That's what the corp websites are for. AllanVS ^{talk contribs} 01:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've pulled the tag for now, and will get to trimming in a bit. The basic concepts are relevant, as we should illustrate what their plans are like. The real problem is that there is too much detail, not that we have plans. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Look at Rogers, Bell, Telus pages... not ONE of them have ANY plans listed. I think it needs to be removed totally. AllanVS ^{talk contribs} 02:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. Look at the US carriers for what I'm talking about. What we have is a list of plans, which can easily be rewritten into something that gives readers an overall impression of what the company offers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

How about a table/graph. I'm still new to wiki and if i had more time would attempt to make one. perhaps in the near future? Might free up some clutter. Or maybe remove plans altogether and emphasize that WIND puts a lot of emphasis on the unlimited notion. Ill give it a shot in a week or so, if not pulled by them. Dontidleyourcar (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the plans section needs a complete overhaul. It needs to be incredibly condensed, if not removed entirely. A simple mention that Wind offers a selection of plans focused on unlimited province-wide and Canada-wide calling would be sufficient, similar to the AT&T page. Katiker (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it really has any place. There's already a snippet that gives a brief overview of their services in another section. Doubled information doesn't serve any purpose. Acco Grayfox (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wind's major marketing point is their "unlimited" offerings at (affordable) prices we could streamline the section by just noting $25 for local, $35 for province-wide and $45 for Canada-wide and just ignore the (special) holiday/winter/unstoppaple plans they offered 69.196.165.20 (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Network technology: which HSPA version?

Right now we are sure that Wind runs a UMTS network on UMTS Band IV, also called 1700. We can also be sure that they us HSPA on the data side. But do we know which version of HSDPA/HSUPA it is? As a comparison, Rogers is claiming 21 Mbps down on their network on their website, is Wind at 7.2 Mbps down? Their USB data stick gives specs of 7.2 down, 2.0 up. Rogers only lists 21 Mbps down for their USB networking devices.

Does anyone have information about the data side of Wind's network? Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wind have been actively upgrading their infrastructure to implement HSDPA and HSUPA, and are in trials of LTE 69.196.165.20 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to radically simplify the article

This article still reads like a giant advertisement for the company's offerings. If a person wants to shop around, let them visit the corporation's website. Also, it just adds to the housekeeping of the article as the company adds/drops phones/plans.

I propose a massive rewrite of devices/services that emphasizes two points - no term contracts (with mention of windtab) and their low cost services compared to the competition. These are likely going to be the things that Wind will be known for. The specific costs associated with their plans or the devices they offered (unless it was very significant, like the iphone and AT&T) aren't likely to be of historical significance.

We can sum up their product/service offerings like the pages on MetroPCS and USCellular do, ie:

"MetroPCS offers unlimited talk, text, and Web service and 411 directory assistance services on four flat-rate plans priced at $40, $45, $50, and $60 - additional options and features vary depending on the rate plan." (modify to remove that abominable matrix)

"The company offers phones manufactured by LG, Samsung, HTC, RIM, Motorola, and Pantech." (modify for the manufacturers that Wind offers devices from)

If no objections are raised, I'll start rewriting the relevant sections.

Acco Grayfox (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

i think that the article is alright, but that the Services section may need some trimming. For example, in the Mobilicity article, the Services section is short and sweet. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

i've also removed mentions of prices in many cases, as per WP:NOPRICES. Plans, add-ons, pay-per-use and roaming prices were almost all removed. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding products and services list

Someone mentioned: "I'm sure that other companies pages DO NOT have plan or headset prices/lists."

Well, for prices, WP:NOPRICES says that price mentions should be omitted, unless there is a valid reason to mention the price. So the following opinions of mine will concern the listing of Products and Services, a style that i've adapted to many articles such as Chatr, Mobilicity, Public Mobile and Telus Mobility.

For products: launch and exclusive devices are certainly notable, even if the exclusivity is temporary, such as for Bell and Virgin with the Google Galaxy Nexus. Non-launch and non-exclusive devices don't bear much weight to me, nor do they pollute the article, so since they're not much trouble, it's fair to include them. In any case, if the device is non-notable, then it will still be included, but without a wikilink or a paragraph about it. Simple as that. Also, if a certain type of once-notable device(s) becomes discontinued in almost or all markets, such as CDMA2000 devices for Telus, then this is certainly mentioned.

For services: Mobilicity is a good example. Prices are mentioned only for the voice plans, simply because they have no name. However, there isn't an explicit definition of what the plans include, except for the lowest-tier plan. Information is summarized and up to the point.

That's all i'll say for now. Let me know what you think! :D --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential move?

The company's legal name is now WIND Mobile Corporation, so shouldn't the article be moved to the title "WIND Mobile"? 129.97.39.187 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

WTF is AWS?

This article mentions AWS several times, but doesn't seem to offer any explanation of that acronym. 184.147.177.230 (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

why delete or significantly modify Sale to Shaw section??

I don't know who anonymous 64.229.113.174 is but to delete an important section, loaded with citations, (with no explanation or alternate edit to include this topic) is not acceptable. Fortunately, I kept a copy of that section and will insert it again. Delete it again and I will file for Dispute Resolution. The explanation Anonymous gave when deleting the entire section was: (this is already addressed) ... Yeah, I addressed it very, very briefly in the lede. But a significant change like this deserves its own section. Peter K Burian 01:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_K_Burian

Interesting; our Anonymous friend now decided to delete everything I had written, and write new text. Well that is better than deleting the entire topic. And he used the most important citations I had provided. But why was it necessary? (He added a bunch of links to other topics on Wikipedia but what benefit did that give to someone who reads this article?) I am not exactly an amateur either as a writer, Wikipedia editor or in terms of an appreciation of business and commerce.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_K_Burian Peter K Burian 00:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the sentence I had provided about the quote from the Shaw CEO. If that is deleted without a really good reason, especially by someone who chooses to remain Anonymous, I will consider it to be an Edit War and will file for Dispute Resolution. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Peter K Burian 01:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wind Mobile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120826080735/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/business/story/2012/04/26/scoc-wind-public-mobile.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/04/26/scoc-wind-public-mobile.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom Mobile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2331650
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327075131/http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?crtr.sj1D=&mthd=tp&crtr.mnthndVl=&nid=501719&crtr.dpt1D=&crtr.tp1D=1&crtr.lc1D=&crtr.yrStrtVl=&crtr.kw=&crtr.dyStrtVl=&crtr.aud1D=&crtr.mnthStrtVl=&crtr.yrndVl=&crtr.dyndVl= to http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?crtr.sj1D=&mthd=tp&crtr.mnthndVl=&nid=501719&crtr.dpt1D=&crtr.tp1D=1&crtr.lc1D=&crtr.yrStrtVl=&crtr.kw=&crtr.dyStrtVl=&crtr.aud1D=&crtr.mnthStrtVl=&crtr.yrndVl=&crtr.dyndVl=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom Mobile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504033350/http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=34418 to http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=34418

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)