Re: Will a Razr V3x work on ATT network?

Cingular group added.

On 2007-10-08, billysardell@mama_mia.com <billysardell@mama_mia.com> wrote:
> I am confused by the 900/1800/1900 MHz Bands it uses and would like
> to know if it will work on Cingular/ATT? Thanks.

Probably not. 900 and 1800 are European frequencies. US carriers run at
800 (sometimes called 850) and 1900. But Cingular is all 850, as I recall.
I'm sure someone in the Cingular newsgroup can confirm this.

T-Mobile is exclusively 1900MHz GSM in the US.



--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

At 08 Oct 2007 14:04:31 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:

> Probably not. 900 and 1800 are European frequencies. US carriers
> run at 800 (sometimes called 850) and 1900. But Cingular is all
> 850, as I recall.


In most areas, yes, but they also have some 1900MHz as well.

> I'm sure someone in the Cingular newsgroup can confirm this.

Happy to oblige...

> T-Mobile is exclusively 1900MHz GSM in the US.

True, however, while T-Mo itself has no native 850MHz, their coverage
includes no-extra-charge roaming on a good many 850MHz carriers, so I
wouldn't recommend a phone without 850 for regular use here in the US.


--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Thanks for the help Todd.


Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 08 Oct 2007 14:04:31 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:
>
> > Probably not. 900 and 1800 are European frequencies. US carriers
> > run at 800 (sometimes called 850) and 1900. But Cingular is all
> > 850, as I recall.
>
> In most areas, yes, but they also have some 1900MHz as well.
>
> > I'm sure someone in the Cingular newsgroup can confirm this.
>
> Happy to oblige...
>
> > T-Mobile is exclusively 1900MHz GSM in the US.
>
> True, however, while T-Mo itself has no native 850MHz, their coverage
> includes no-extra-charge roaming on a good many 850MHz carriers, so I
> wouldn't recommend a phone without 850 for regular use here in the US.

--
-

SMS wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> Motorola really screwed up by not putting a quad-band chipset in the
> V3x. It's one of the reasons they're doing so poorly now, they don't
> understand the handset business.

Perhaps you haven't heard about the Razr2 v8 and v9?

In news:470a494a$0$79912$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Motorola really screwed up by not putting a quad-band chipset in the
> V3x. It's one of the reasons they're doing so poorly now, they don't
> understand the handset business.


Motorola is currently selling a quad-band "V3" and a quad-band "V3i" at
their online store, as well as a quad-band "KRZR K1". The "V3xx" offered
there is a tri-band phone.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com

BruceR schrieb:
> SMS wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>> Motorola really screwed up by not putting a quad-band chipset in the
>> V3x. It's one of the reasons they're doing so poorly now, they don't
>> understand the handset business.
>
> Perhaps you haven't heard about the Razr2 v8 and v9?

Though I like the V8 (and would probably like the V9 had I had the
chance to try one), some might say "too little, too late". Is there a
real USP in these devices? Anything Nokia, Samsung, LG and who else
can't do just as good? The only real thing that comes to my mind is the
fancy looks, but then I must say, an LG KU990 looks nice as well.

By the way, the US V9 is a worldphone GSM-wise, but it doesn't do 3G in
Europe due to the lack of 2100.

Andreas

On 2007-10-08, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> Cingular group added.
>
> On 2007-10-08, billysardell@mama_mia.com <billysardell@mama_mia.com> wrote:
>> I am confused by the 900/1800/1900 MHz Bands it uses and would like
>> to know if it will work on Cingular/ATT? Thanks.
>
> Probably not. 900 and 1800 are European frequencies. US carriers run at
> 800 (sometimes called 850) and 1900. But Cingular is all 850, as I recall.
> I'm sure someone in the Cingular newsgroup can confirm this.

I think AT&T actually has more 1900 MHz coverage than 850 MHz in the
country. Compare, for example, the coverage maps here:

http://www.mountainwireless.com/att_850_1900.shtml

That said, I don't think I'd use a 1900 MHz only phone with AT&T
unless I really had no alternative.

Dennis Ferguson

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:47:40 -1000, BruceR <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>
> SMS wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>> Motorola really screwed up by not putting a quad-band chipset in the
>> V3x. It's one of the reasons they're doing so poorly now, they don't
>> understand the handset business.
>
>Perhaps you haven't heard about the Razr2 v8 and v9?

The V500, V550, V545, V600 and L7 were also all quad band... so I wouldn't
say Motorola don't know the handset business, in fact of all I've used I
actually prefer theirs.

--
-- Michael "Soruk" McConnell Eridani Star System
MailStripper - http://www.MailStripper.eu/ - SMTP spam filter
Mail Me Anywhere - http://www.MailMeAnywhere.com/ - Mobile email
Second Number - http://secondnumber.matrixnetwork.co.uk/

On 2007-10-09, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Sobol wrote:
>> T-Mobile is exclusively 1900MHz GSM in the US.
>
> They seem at least to have several 850 MHz roaming agreements.

Yes, they do. Natively, they're 1900 only.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

Steve Sobol wrote:
> T-Mobile is exclusively 1900MHz GSM in the US.

They seem at least to have several 850 MHz roaming agreements.

--
One phrase that explains 99% of all idiot driving:
"You can't block traffic if you're not in the way."

On 2007-10-08, Andreas Wenzel <awspambucket@gmx.de> wrote:
> BruceR schrieb:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> Motorola really screwed up by not putting a quad-band chipset in the
>>> V3x. It's one of the reasons they're doing so poorly now, they don't
>>> understand the handset business.
>>
>> Perhaps you haven't heard about the Razr2 v8 and v9?
>
> Though I like the V8 (and would probably like the V9 had I had the
> chance to try one), some might say "too little, too late". Is there a
> real USP in these devices? Anything Nokia, Samsung, LG and who else
> can't do just as good? The only real thing that comes to my mind is the
> fancy looks, but then I must say, an LG KU990 looks nice as well.

I'm personally biased towards Motorola phones mostly because, beyond
making phone calls, the only feature I tend to make a lot of use of
is the ability to tether to a laptop for data service and, unlike other
brands I've tried, I've never had a problem using a Motorola phone for
this. Current Motorola phones also support 3.6 Mbps HSDPA, if you care
about this. Apart from this one feature and the fact that I've also not
had a Motorola phone that was bad at making voice calls (Nokia has, in the
past, made some truly terrible CDMA phones), I agree that there isn't
much about current Motorola phones that would make me want to buy
one instead of some other brand.

> By the way, the US V9 is a worldphone GSM-wise, but it doesn't do 3G in
> Europe due to the lack of 2100.

Exactly. The US LG KU990 doesn't seem to do 2100 MHz either, nor does
just about anything else. Phones which have full band coverage for both
US and European GSM and 3G are almost as rare as hen's teeth.

The (European) V3xx is a very fine phone for GSM/3G use in Europe and
Asia, it is just that you need another phone for GSM/3G use in North
America. The V9 doesn't fix that if you need 3G both places, you
still need two phones and you might just as well buy two V3xx's
since they've gotten pretty cheap. Personally I'd be willing to
spend a bit to get one phone which does GSM and 3G everywhere,
but until one with the right features becomes available a V3xx
(or two) isn't a bad buy.

Dennis Ferguson

Dennis Ferguson schrieb:
> [...] Phones which have full band coverage for both
> US and European GSM and 3G are almost as rare as hen's teeth.

Thats true. HTC Tytn II is the only one that comes to my mind. I would
sure not want to walk around with such a brick in my pocket, but as the
Tytn II is Qualcomm 7200 based, there must be/will soon be other devices
on that plattform offering triband WCDMA. Samsung, I would suspect.

Hopefully, Freescale/Motorola will not sit on their butts and produce a
chipset that does it as well.

> The (European) V3xx is a very fine phone for GSM/3G use in Europe and
> Asia, it is just that you need another phone for GSM/3G use in North
> America. The V9 doesn't fix that if you need 3G both places, you
> still need two phones and you might just as well buy two V3xx's
> since they've gotten pretty cheap. Personally I'd be willing to
> spend a bit to get one phone which does GSM and 3G everywhere,
> but until one with the right features becomes available a V3xx
> (or two) isn't a bad buy.

True, the Motos are rock solid, I just guess you can't be number one
with a range of solid but feature-wise only average phones.

Andreas