V330 Terrible standby time

The V330 is advertised to have 240 hours of standby time (about 10 days). I
am consistently getting less than 96 hours (about 4 days) on two phones.

Here is the history:

Phone 1:
Always on
Used frequently (about 40 min talk-time/week)
Bluetooth used occasionally
Used only for voice communication (No games, downloads, etc.)

Phone 2:
Always on
Used rarely (about 5 min talk-time/week)
Bluetooth never used
Used only for voice communication (No games, downloads, etc.)

In spite of very different usage patterns, the behavior of both phones is
identical: about 4 days of standby time.

T-Mobile has done the following:
Replaced both phones
Replaced both batteries
Replaced both chargers

None of these actions has helped. Both phones get about 4 days of standby.

Motorola has done the following:
Sent me to a repair station to have the software re-flashed.

No joy. The poor standby time continues. They are currently sending me
different batteries. I do not have high hopes.

Incidentally, I always charge by letting the batteries discharge
completely, then charge overnight.

I like the V330s and would like to keep them. (I have to keep them. I'm
stuck in a T-Mobile contract.)

Unless I am missing something, there must be a design flaw.

Is anyone else experiencing this problem? Does anyone have any suggestions?

---

› See More: V330 Terrible standby time

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.motorola - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 24 Nov 2005
18:10:34 GMT, "Burton L. Alperson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The V330 is advertised to have 240 hours of standby time (about 10 days). I
>am consistently getting less than 96 hours (about 4 days) on two phones.
>
>Here is the history:
>
>Phone 1:
>Always on
>Used frequently (about 40 min talk-time/week)
>Bluetooth used occasionally
>Used only for voice communication (No games, downloads, etc.)
>
>Phone 2:
>Always on
>Used rarely (about 5 min talk-time/week)
>Bluetooth never used
>Used only for voice communication (No games, downloads, etc.)
>
>In spite of very different usage patterns, the behavior of both phones is
>identical: about 4 days of standby time.
>...

Specs are obtained under ideal conditions. When signal is less than ideal,
the battery runs down faster, because transmit power is boosted.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Burton L. Alperson wrote:
> The V330 is advertised to have 240 hours of standby time (about 10 days). I
> am consistently getting less than 96 hours (about 4 days) on two phones.
>
> Here is the history:
>
> Phone 1:
> Always on
> Used frequently (about 40 min talk-time/week)
> Bluetooth used occasionally
> Used only for voice communication (No games, downloads, etc.)
>
> Phone 2:
> Always on
> Used rarely (about 5 min talk-time/week)
> Bluetooth never used
> Used only for voice communication (No games, downloads, etc.)
>
> In spite of very different usage patterns, the behavior of both phones is
> identical: about 4 days of standby time.
>
> T-Mobile has done the following:
> Replaced both phones
> Replaced both batteries
> Replaced both chargers
>
> None of these actions has helped. Both phones get about 4 days of standby.
>
> Motorola has done the following:
> Sent me to a repair station to have the software re-flashed.
>
> No joy. The poor standby time continues. They are currently sending me
> different batteries. I do not have high hopes.
>
> Incidentally, I always charge by letting the batteries discharge
> completely, then charge overnight.
>
> I like the V330s and would like to keep them. (I have to keep them. I'm
> stuck in a T-Mobile contract.)
>
> Unless I am missing something, there must be a design flaw.
>
> Is anyone else experiencing this problem? Does anyone have any suggestions?
Please tell what the signal strength is where these phones are standing
by. The advertised time is only valid if your phone uses its minimum
power levels to do its handshakes and for that you need to be virtually
under the tower. In 10 years I have never received the full stand by
time. My experience has been more like 1/2 the time if I am lucky.

columbotrek <[email protected]> wrote in
news:Zlyhf.42790$2k5.23806@dukeread09:

> Please tell what the signal strength is where these phones are
> standing by. The advertised time is only valid if your phone uses its
> minimum power levels to do its handshakes and for that you need to be
> virtually under the tower. In 10 years I have never received the full
> stand by time. My experience has been more like 1/2 the time if I am
> lucky.

I'm in central Los Angeles. Signal strength is almost always a full five
bars.

I've had five cell phones, all used in this area. This is the worst
performance I have experienced.

I didn't expect the full advertised performance, but less than half is
pretty poor.

Burt

The specs are UP TO 10 days from the manufacturer. They don't guarantee
specs for a particular operator.

In order to get 10 days, you need to be on system that uses a DRX9 receiver
cycle. That means the phone wakes up at the longest possible interval to
get a call.

Tmobile USA DRX2. That's the worst possible scenario for receiver standby
time.
The range is DRX2 - DRX9. And Tmobile is at the bottom.

In other words, you will probably get 2-3 days standby time.

You'd have to move to another country with DRX9 settings to get that type of
battery life on that phone.

--
Steve
"Burton L. Alperson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> columbotrek <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:Zlyhf.42790$2k5.23806@dukeread09:
>
>> Please tell what the signal strength is where these phones are
>> standing by. The advertised time is only valid if your phone uses its
>> minimum power levels to do its handshakes and for that you need to be
>> virtually under the tower. In 10 years I have never received the full
>> stand by time. My experience has been more like 1/2 the time if I am
>> lucky.
>
> I'm in central Los Angeles. Signal strength is almost always a full five
> bars.
>
> I've had five cell phones, all used in this area. This is the worst
> performance I have experienced.
>
> I didn't expect the full advertised performance, but less than half is
> pretty poor.
>
> Burt