Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 49
  1. #1
    I live in a pretty marginal area for Cingular signal.
    I upgraded from a Motorola V551 to a Razr V3xx about a week ago.
    So far, I am unimpressed with the receive sensitivity.

    The V551 would occasionally show no signal strength when I pulled it out of
    my pocket, but I would almost always be able to make calls.

    The V3xx shows no signal, and call attempts fail, in the same places
    around the house. The web browser is almost useless, rarely able to
    display a page in places where the V551 would work.

    I think I'm going to return the V3xx and get something else.
    What would be a good model?

    I thought 3G was good, but I don't have 3G near me.
    I like EDGE and Bluetooth. The camera doesn't matter.

    --
    Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5



    See More: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity




  2. #2
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    [email protected] wrote:
    > I live in a pretty marginal area for Cingular signal.
    > I upgraded from a Motorola V551 to a Razr V3xx about a week ago.
    > So far, I am unimpressed with the receive sensitivity.
    >
    > The V551 would occasionally show no signal strength when I pulled it out of
    > my pocket, but I would almost always be able to make calls.
    >
    > The V3xx shows no signal, and call attempts fail, in the same places
    > around the house. The web browser is almost useless, rarely able to
    > display a page in places where the V551 would work.
    >
    > I think I'm going to return the V3xx and get something else.
    > What would be a good model?
    >
    > I thought 3G was good, but I don't have 3G near me.
    > I like EDGE and Bluetooth. The camera doesn't matter.


    I thought that Hidden Valley Lake/Middletown didn't have Cingular
    coverage, that it was through Edge Wireless. Verizon has great coverage
    up in that area, at least as I've experienced it going from Middletown
    up to Clear Lake.

    I am dreading it when the AMPS network goes away. There are vast areas
    of the north coast where this is the only available coverage.

    I.e. compare Cingular/Edge's coverage:
    "http://i16.tinypic.com/6faifso.jpg"

    with Verizon's coverage if you have a tri-mode phone:
    "http://i19.tinypic.com/5xg52x5.jpg".



    [Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
    non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name has gone
    away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
    AT&T's wireless service.]



  3. #3
    Dick
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    On Mon, 28 May 2007 05:17:25 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

    >I live in a pretty marginal area for Cingular signal.
    >I upgraded from a Motorola V551 to a Razr V3xx about a week ago.
    >So far, I am unimpressed with the receive sensitivity.
    >
    >The V551 would occasionally show no signal strength when I pulled it out of
    >my pocket, but I would almost always be able to make calls.
    >
    >The V3xx shows no signal, and call attempts fail, in the same places
    >around the house. The web browser is almost useless, rarely able to
    >display a page in places where the V551 would work.
    >
    >I think I'm going to return the V3xx and get something else.
    >What would be a good model?
    >
    >I thought 3G was good, but I don't have 3G near me.
    >I like EDGE and Bluetooth. The camera doesn't matter.


    I recently upgraded my V551 to a KRZR K1 with Cingular (AT&T). The
    KRZR has proven superior to the V551 and my wife's V557 for marginal
    signals. I love the little phone. Might give that one a try. Got it
    at Walmart. They have a 14-day return policy if you don't like it.

    Dick

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com




  4. #4
    Andreas Wenzel
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    [email protected] schrieb:
    > [...]
    > I thought 3G was good, but I don't have 3G near me.
    > I like EDGE and Bluetooth. The camera doesn't matter.


    UMTS works on different frequency bands than GSM. That means, that a 3G
    phone needs to accomodate more antennas than a 2G phone. The more
    antennas the engineers need to integrate into the phone housing, the
    less freedom they have to optimize their design for each frequency band.
    Therefore, 3G phones tend to be less sensitive, and put out less power
    on GSM bands, than good GSM phones.

    So if you can't use the UMTS functions anyway because you do not have 3G
    coverage at your home, then it might be a good idea to go for a 2G
    only phone.

    Radio performance is measurable. The manufacturers do take such
    measurements, they are required to take measurements before they can
    sell a new device, but they usually do not publish their results. I do
    not live in the US, so I don't know if you can get this kind of
    information from e.g. special interest magazines or consumer report, but
    if I was out for a new phone, that is where I would check first.

    I've set a follow up to alt.cellular.motorola.

    Andreas




  5. #5
    Dennis Ferguson
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    On 2007-05-28, Andreas Wenzel <[email protected]> wrote:
    > [email protected] schrieb:
    >> [...]
    >> I thought 3G was good, but I don't have 3G near me.
    >> I like EDGE and Bluetooth. The camera doesn't matter.

    >
    > UMTS works on different frequency bands than GSM. That means, that a 3G
    > phone needs to accomodate more antennas than a 2G phone. The more
    > antennas the engineers need to integrate into the phone housing, the
    > less freedom they have to optimize their design for each frequency band.
    > Therefore, 3G phones tend to be less sensitive, and put out less power
    > on GSM bands, than good GSM phones.


    Actually Cingular in the US runs UMTS in the same frequency bands as
    GSM. They have no other spectrum. The US V3xx has no support for
    2100 MHz at all; they are triband 850/1800/1900 MHz phones, i.e. less
    frequency coverage than a V3.

    You are right that antenna performance is a problem when space is limited,
    but the compromises generally show up in the low frequency bands where
    efficient antennas need to be big (and hence the space which can be saved
    is largest). The fact that the two V3xx models support either 850 or 900
    MHz, but not both, is a likely consequence of being space-constrained
    for the antenna. I'm not sure the performance in the higher frequency
    bands necessarily needs to be impaired.

    Dennis Ferguson



  6. #6
    Andreas Wenzel
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    Dennis Ferguson schrieb:
    > [...]
    > Actually Cingular in the US runs UMTS in the same frequency bands as
    > GSM. They have no other spectrum. The US V3xx has no support for
    > 2100 MHz at all; they are triband 850/1800/1900 MHz phones, i.e. less
    > frequency coverage than a V3.


    Wow, you're right, I didn't think about that US specialty. Now I would
    really like to see TRP/TIS results on GSM 1900 for a 2G quadband like
    the V3 vs the US V3xx and the Euro V3xx...

    Andreas



  7. #7
    Dick
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    On Mon, 28 May 2007 16:41:08 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 2007-05-28, Andreas Wenzel <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> [email protected] schrieb:
    >>> [...]
    >>> I thought 3G was good, but I don't have 3G near me.
    >>> I like EDGE and Bluetooth. The camera doesn't matter.

    >>
    >> UMTS works on different frequency bands than GSM. That means, that a 3G
    >> phone needs to accomodate more antennas than a 2G phone. The more
    >> antennas the engineers need to integrate into the phone housing, the
    >> less freedom they have to optimize their design for each frequency band.
    >> Therefore, 3G phones tend to be less sensitive, and put out less power
    >> on GSM bands, than good GSM phones.

    >
    >Actually Cingular in the US runs UMTS in the same frequency bands as
    >GSM. They have no other spectrum. The US V3xx has no support for
    >2100 MHz at all; they are triband 850/1800/1900 MHz phones, i.e. less
    >frequency coverage than a V3.
    >
    >You are right that antenna performance is a problem when space is limited,
    >but the compromises generally show up in the low frequency bands where
    >efficient antennas need to be big (and hence the space which can be saved
    >is largest). The fact that the two V3xx models support either 850 or 900
    >MHz, but not both, is a likely consequence of being space-constrained
    >for the antenna. I'm not sure the performance in the higher frequency
    >bands necessarily needs to be impaired.
    >
    >Dennis Ferguson


    Interestingly, The KRZR K1 has only 85% of the volume of the V3xx, but
    is a quad-band phone.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com




  8. #8

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    > > I live in a pretty marginal area for Cingular signal.


    > I thought that Hidden Valley Lake/Middletown didn't have Cingular
    > coverage, that it was through Edge Wireless. Verizon has great coverage
    > up in that area, at least as I've experienced it going from Middletown
    > up to Clear Lake.


    'tis true on both counts. I have a cheap corporate account with Cingular,
    and Edge Wireless is "an AT&T partner". I thought I was using AT&T because
    that's what my cellphone says on the screen, but someone noted that isn't a
    good test. I dialed 7070707070 on my phone and received an error message
    from Edge Wireless while I had an AT&T display on my phone.

    I am disappointed to find, after five years at this location, that I am
    not on a Cingular tower. I thought that my arrival here predated Edge
    Wireless expansion into the area. Maybe their expansion to south Lake
    County coincided with what I thought was an improvement in performance
    on the old phone. I used to roam to the pathetic USCellular if I wasn't
    on AT&T. So, apparently my "poor coverage" is EdgeWireless poor coverage,
    and not Cingular. That eliminates one alternative to Cingular ;-(
    The switch to EdgeWireless would just be an increase in my bill, with no
    change in performance.

    Cingular just shows "partner" coverage, with no gradients in this area.
    http://www.cingular.com/coverageviewer/
    The Edgewireless map-html doesn't show the area very well, but I would say
    it excludes me entirely, which is out of date by several years.
    http://www.edgewireless.com/rates/localOrCa.html
    Their non-roaming coverage is pretty small, so i liked the arrangement
    that I had.

    Verizon had no coverage here a couple of years ago, but they came in
    with a bang, and now have excellent coverage all over the area. I have
    been inclined to stay with Cingular because of the corporate plan,
    and because of what I've heard about Verizon phone feature crippling.
    Looking at the pricing, I suppose I could suffer with that. I just
    signed a 2 year contract with Cingular, but I could cancel that since
    it has been less than thirty days.

    http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/C...type=newsearch

    Then I'd have to pick three new phones ;-)

    --
    Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5



  9. #9

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    Dick <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Mon, 28 May 2007 05:17:25 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:


    > >I live in a pretty marginal area for Cingular signal.
    > >I upgraded from a Motorola V551 to a Razr V3xx about a week ago.
    > >So far, I am unimpressed with the receive sensitivity.


    > I recently upgraded my V551 to a KRZR K1 with Cingular (AT&T). The
    > KRZR has proven superior to the V551 and my wife's V557 for marginal
    > signals. I love the little phone. Might give that one a try. Got it
    > at Walmart. They have a 14-day return policy if you don't like it.


    I saw the KRZR at the Cingular store that I visited to get a new SIM for
    my phone. It would cost $199 instead of the $49 V3xx, but if it works
    better, and it's so cute... ;-)

    Walmart only sells ... I forget what, near me. Maybe that's a clue in
    itself. I might need to have another look at that.

    --
    Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5



  10. #10

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    In alt.cellular.cingular [email protected] wrote:
    > Verizon had no coverage here a couple of years ago, but they came in
    > with a bang, and now have excellent coverage all over the area. I have
    > been inclined to stay with Cingular because of the corporate plan,
    > and because of what I've heard about Verizon phone feature crippling.


    I think I also didn't like their data plan policies, and the pricing of a
    tethered PC, compared to the lax policies on Cingular.

    --
    Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5



  11. #11
    Dennis Ferguson
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    On 2007-05-28, Dick <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Mon, 28 May 2007 16:41:08 GMT, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
    >>You are right that antenna performance is a problem when space is limited,
    >>but the compromises generally show up in the low frequency bands where
    >>efficient antennas need to be big (and hence the space which can be saved
    >>is largest).

    [...]
    > Interestingly, The KRZR K1 has only 85% of the volume of the V3xx, but
    > is a quad-band phone.


    Yes, but note that the KRZR K3, which adds UMTS/HSDPA, also loses one of
    the low frequency bands.

    My current theory is that it is the addition of the electronics to
    do the extra computing needed to support WCDMA which makes space a
    problem, and that compromising the low frequency support helps get
    some of that back. If the theory is true we'll need to wait for the
    electronics to shrink before we'll get all-band phones in something like
    the form factor of current quadband GSM phones.

    Dennis Ferguson



  12. #12

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    In alt.cellular.cingular [email protected] wrote:
    > In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <[email protected]> wrote:


    > > Verizon has great coverage up in that area, at least as I've
    > > experienced it going from Middletown up to Clear Lake.


    > Then I'd have to pick three new phones ;-)


    Verizon isn't listed on my corporate discount page, but when I go to
    the Verizon web page, I find that I do have an employee discount.

    The nice representative on the phone suggests the KRZR because it's new,
    all digital, and has cool looks and features, but suggests the v325i for
    better radio operation in my area, with the "extended Analog" feature.

    --
    Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5



  13. #13
    Dick
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    On Mon, 28 May 2007 18:47:03 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 2007-05-28, Dick <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 16:41:08 GMT, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
    >>>You are right that antenna performance is a problem when space is limited,
    >>>but the compromises generally show up in the low frequency bands where
    >>>efficient antennas need to be big (and hence the space which can be saved
    >>>is largest).

    >[...]
    >> Interestingly, The KRZR K1 has only 85% of the volume of the V3xx, but
    >> is a quad-band phone.

    >
    >Yes, but note that the KRZR K3, which adds UMTS/HSDPA, also loses one of
    >the low frequency bands.
    >
    >My current theory is that it is the addition of the electronics to
    >do the extra computing needed to support WCDMA which makes space a
    >problem, and that compromising the low frequency support helps get
    >some of that back. If the theory is true we'll need to wait for the
    >electronics to shrink before we'll get all-band phones in something like
    >the form factor of current quadband GSM phones.
    >
    >Dennis Ferguson


    Except that it is the KRZR K1 and not the K3 that is used by Cingular.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com




  14. #14
    Dick
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    On Mon, 28 May 2007 18:40:33 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

    >Dick <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 05:17:25 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

    >
    >> >I live in a pretty marginal area for Cingular signal.
    >> >I upgraded from a Motorola V551 to a Razr V3xx about a week ago.
    >> >So far, I am unimpressed with the receive sensitivity.

    >
    >> I recently upgraded my V551 to a KRZR K1 with Cingular (AT&T). The
    >> KRZR has proven superior to the V551 and my wife's V557 for marginal
    >> signals. I love the little phone. Might give that one a try. Got it
    >> at Walmart. They have a 14-day return policy if you don't like it.

    >
    >I saw the KRZR at the Cingular store that I visited to get a new SIM for
    >my phone. It would cost $199 instead of the $49 V3xx, but if it works
    >better, and it's so cute... ;-)
    >
    >Walmart only sells ... I forget what, near me. Maybe that's a clue in
    >itself. I might need to have another look at that.


    The KRZR was $79 at Wally World. We have two Walmarts in town. One
    handles Cingular/AT&T with the KRZR, and the other store does not.
    When I first saw the KRZR at the store farthest from my home, I
    decided to wait until I went to the one closest to where I live.
    Wrong! The close one didn't even carry Cingular even though it was
    the larger of the two stores. Lesson here. Try several Walmarts.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com




  15. #15
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    Dennis Ferguson wrote:
    > On 2007-05-28, Dick <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 16:41:08 GMT, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
    >>> You are right that antenna performance is a problem when space is limited,
    >>> but the compromises generally show up in the low frequency bands where
    >>> efficient antennas need to be big (and hence the space which can be saved
    >>> is largest).

    > [...]
    >> Interestingly, The KRZR K1 has only 85% of the volume of the V3xx, but
    >> is a quad-band phone.

    >
    > Yes, but note that the KRZR K3, which adds UMTS/HSDPA, also loses one of
    > the low frequency bands.
    >
    > My current theory is that it is the addition of the electronics to
    > do the extra computing needed to support WCDMA which makes space a
    > problem, and that compromising the low frequency support helps get
    > some of that back.


    Unlikely. The reason they dropped the main European/Asian band was so
    they could use the less expensive three band chipset. There are a lot of
    phones around that are either 800/1800/1900 or 900/1800/1900. These use
    chipsets that were developed when 1900 was the only North American GSM
    band. It was great, you could have a world phone using the same three
    band chipset all over the world. Unfortunately, with the addition of 800
    Mhz as the main North American frequency, suddenly you were in a
    lose-lose situation. 800/1800/1900 which was great for North America but
    terrible for Europe and Asia, or 900/1800/1900 which was great for
    Europe and Asia, but terrible for North America.

    If space were the issue, they'd have left out 1800 on the North American
    V3xx.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast