Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
  1. #1
    Bubba DeBub
    Guest
    Why does the customer have to be concerned with which cell phone provides
    the best reception if he lives in a low signal area? I have seen many folks
    try to purchase the phone that has the best reception. Note that the phone
    with the best reception is not always the most expensive phone.

    Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
    performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will provide
    adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?

    It seems that the cell phone carriers could solve this problem by
    establishing better RF performance standards for all cell phone suppliers.
    Therefore the reception of all makes and models of phones would be
    identical.









    See More: Minimum RF Performance?




  2. #2
    Stanley Reynolds
    Guest

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?


    "Bubba DeBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Why does the customer have to be concerned with which cell phone provides
    > the best reception if he lives in a low signal area? I have seen many

    folks
    > try to purchase the phone that has the best reception. Note that the phone
    > with the best reception is not always the most expensive phone.
    >
    > Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
    > performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will

    provide
    > adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?
    >
    > It seems that the cell phone carriers could solve this problem by
    > establishing better RF performance standards for all cell phone suppliers.
    > Therefore the reception of all makes and models of phones would be
    > identical.
    >

    I hope that other factors such as cost, features, size, battery life are
    also considered, maybe the carriers can offer a choice of phones so I can
    pick the one I want. What we need is standards on is the number of picals in
    camera phones and the height of 50% fall survival rate. By the way to get
    equal RF performance you don't need to change the phones, the carrier could
    mesure the phones performance and add an index to the table where the esn is
    stored and handicap the phone at the cell site now all phones are equal (
    lowest common denominator ).





  3. #3
    Bob Scheurle
    Guest

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?

    On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:55:51 -0700, "Bubba DeBub"
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
    >performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will provide
    >adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?


    Because there's no free lunch, and improving RF performance may result in
    trade-offs in areas like size, weight, battery life, cost, etc. Your
    question is like suggesting that all cars and SUVs get 45 mpg.

    --
    Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
    [email protected] | rich writing software."
    Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980



  4. #4
    DevilsPGD
    Guest

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?

    In message <[email protected]> Bob Scheurle
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:55:51 -0700, "Bubba DeBub"
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
    >>performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will provide
    >>adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?

    >
    >Because there's no free lunch, and improving RF performance may result in
    >trade-offs in areas like size, weight, battery life, cost, etc. Your
    >question is like suggesting that all cars and SUVs get 45 mpg.


    However, requiring the RF performance to be documented fully in
    understandable terms (in other words, some sort of index or aggregate
    number that indicates which phone is "better" in terms of RF
    performance)




    --
    'Tis far better to have snipped too much than to never have snipped at all.



  5. #5
    Central
    Guest

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?

    On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 04:17:37 -0600, DevilsPGD wrote:

    >
    > However, requiring the RF performance to be documented fully in
    > understandable terms (in other words, some sort of index or aggregate
    > number that indicates which phone is "better" in terms of RF
    > performance)


    So you want a color scale? That is not going to happen the way you want it
    for a few reasons. Keep in mind they do publish the RF radiation along
    with various tests on it's output with the FCC which you can look up if
    you so choose. First off to design a phone that has a great feature set
    and the best reception you have to put money into the best hardware you
    can find, risk producing a large/heavy phone along with lower battery
    life. These kind of considerations would be fine if it wasn't for the fact
    that every cell phone manufacture is trying to out sell each other and the
    more they can cut their costs along with producing a product with the
    feature set/size their customers want the more they will sell. The second
    reason why they won't implement a rating system is because of how
    impractical measuring RF reception on a moving low powered device that is
    excepted to work with almost no signal(according to some people) is. Since
    the radios the phones use may not even be the same model or utilize the
    same antenna design listing a scale that will be accurate, from a consumer
    prospective, would take time and money that would only hurt cell phone
    sales in the long run and be dumbed down to a point where it can't be used
    for anything useful. Such as how the signal bars on a phone allow a glance
    at your probably to make a call with only your specific phone and not
    others.

    When I mention that the scale would hurt cell phone sales the reasoning
    behind this is that who wants to buy a phone with a low reception rating?
    With this scale people will only want to buy the best within their price
    range. Wither or not this scale means anything it will make people
    think that this phone with a rating of 7 is better then this other one
    with a 5. By putting a rating system that most likely will have no direct
    real world(usable) relation all cellphone providers allow themselves to do
    is build a system where that as soon as you put a cell phone on the shelf
    it's value is related not to it's feature set or actual performance but to
    a number that is in place to make people think the phone "might" work
    everywhere they take it.



  6. #6
    CellGuy
    Guest

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?

    On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:55:51 -0700, Bubba DeBub wrote:

    > Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
    > performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will provide
    > adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?


    There is only so much space in a cell phone to keep the size managable.
    When users demand add-ons like cameras, memory cards, MP3 players, etc.
    compromises have to be made on the RF circuitry.

    It's interesting to note that one of the best RF performers was the simple
    Moto StarTac series. No frills - just great performance.



  7. #7
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?

    Bubba DeBub wrote:

    > Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
    > performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will provide
    > adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?


    Actually, there are minimum standards that are often set by the wireless
    carrier. When a phone is takem in and diagnostics are done on it, RF
    performance is one of the indicators used to judge whether a phone is
    considered "in spec." It must meet a minimum performance level, it must
    be able to step through a range of transmit levels, and at least in the
    case of CDMA, it must not exceed a certain maximum level (because a
    phone that transmits too powerfully on CDMA will unnecessarily raise the
    noise floor and degrade the performance of other phones in the same sector).

    That said, a minimum is just that, a minimum. Some phones are still "in
    spec" but perform better than others. Carriers can conceiveably make
    their standards more stringent and demand better minimum performance,
    but that still won't eliminate discussions about what phones are better
    at reception than others. Customers will continue to push the envelope
    on which phones work well or better than others in fringe areas, for as
    long as fringe areas continue to exist.

    The only way to eliminate this is to make each and every phone uniform
    in size, shape, and design, and to completely replace the current base
    of phones out in the field with this uniform model. Considering that
    cell phones have become a fashion accessory and appeal to various tastes
    and styles, some customers want more out of their phones (camera, PDA,
    blutooth, data) than others, and handset makers want to be able to make
    their designs unique from their competitors, this just isn't going to
    happen anytime soon.


    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.



  8. #8

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?

    I haven't really noticed much difference in reception among the various
    phones that I've used and tested. They were all about the same.




  9. #9
    speedy
    Guest

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?



    CellGuy wrote:

    > It's interesting to note that one of the best RF performers was the simple
    > Moto StarTac series. No frills - just great performance.


    Ditto!

    I dont want the extra crap, just a phone that is readable, comfortable,
    and doesnt drop calls all the time.

    I still like the startac better than my VX4400

    -Pete




  10. #10

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?

    Just for the record if I had to pick one phone the StarTac 7867 was the
    worst performing phone I've ever used. It dropped more calls than any
    other phone, not to mention the UI was something I could never get used
    to.




  11. #11
    Joel Kolstad
    Guest

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?

    "Bubba DeBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
    > performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will
    > provide adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?


    They do, but radio propagation is fickle enough that without visiting each
    and every square meter of space that they're attempting to cover, there's no
    way they can be 100% certain the phone will operate in what they consider
    their coverage area.

    Of course, marketing departments within some of the wireless companies are
    much worse about 'closing in (known) gaps' on their coverage maps than
    others... :-(

    > It seems that the cell phone carriers could solve this problem by
    > establishing better RF performance standards for all cell phone suppliers.
    > Therefore the reception of all makes and models of phones would be
    > identical.


    Unless you want all the phones to use the exact same hardware and software,
    that just isn't going to happen. Even then, there's enough statistical
    variation in RF component production that some phones will end up getting
    noticeably better reception than others.

    At the end of the day, wireless system desginers use statistical models to
    set performance specs for phones. E.g., with so much output power, they
    figure they can achieve a decent bit error rate in, say, 99% of the time.
    Usually you're looking at a normal distribution, so going from covering,
    say, 99% of the scenarios to 99.9% can require, e.g., a ten-fold increase
    in, say, power, which makes the phone considerably bigger, shortens battery
    life, etc. In other words, at some point it's "just not worth it" to trade
    off one design parameter for another.

    Engineering is all about making intelligent trade-offs to achieve an ends...


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >






  12. #12
    Joel Kolstad
    Guest

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?

    "Central" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news[email protected]
    > from a consumer
    > prospective, would take time and money that would only hurt cell phone
    > sales in the long run and be dumbed down to a point where it can't be used
    > for anything useful.


    I agree it would probably have to be dumpbed down to the point where it
    isn't useful, although OVERALL sales wouldn't suffer -- it's just which
    manufacturer gets the sale that could change.

    I'd first like to see regular analog TVs and AM/FM radios provide
    sensitivity ratings -- they're still simply enough you could get a
    reasonably standardized, useful result that SOME consumers might make use
    of.

    I do think that marketing departments tend to be overly fearful of
    publishing technical information; I believe their flaw is in thinking that
    many people would consider it when, in actuality, the vast majority of
    consumers couldn't care less about the phone's technical RF performance.
    Look at cars and cameras -- magazines such as Car & Driver and Professional
    Photographer produce very detailed technical test results that some people
    use as part of their buying decision, but the vast majority of people buy
    cars and cameras based on the features 'marketed' to them, no technical
    questions asked.

    On the other hand, far too many people think that "MHz" alone is what they
    should chose computers by... :-(





  13. #13
    Joel Kolstad
    Guest

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?

    "DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > However, requiring the RF performance to be documented fully in
    > understandable terms (in other words, some sort of index or aggregate
    > number that indicates which phone is "better" in terms of RF
    > performance)


    It just can't be done. As I mentioned, try something simpler first --
    computers. How do you go about boiling their performance down to just one
    number that lets you choose the better one?





  14. #14
    John Richards
    Guest

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?

    "Joel Kolstad" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > "DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> However, requiring the RF performance to be documented fully in
    >> understandable terms (in other words, some sort of index or aggregate
    >> number that indicates which phone is "better" in terms of RF
    >> performance)

    >
    > It just can't be done. As I mentioned, try something simpler first --
    > computers. How do you go about boiling their performance down to just one
    > number that lets you choose the better one?


    I don't think the OP is asking for an overall performance measurement,
    just the RF sensitivity, which is only one parameter, and is indeed
    measurable. I've seen RF sensitivity spec'd for high performance receivers
    such as military and ham shortwave radios, but never for consumer
    devices. Manufacturers consider it to be sensitive proprietary information.

    --
    John Richards



  15. #15
    DevilsPGD
    Guest

    Re: Minimum RF Performance?

    In message <[email protected]> "Joel Kolstad"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> However, requiring the RF performance to be documented fully in
    >> understandable terms (in other words, some sort of index or aggregate
    >> number that indicates which phone is "better" in terms of RF
    >> performance)

    >
    >It just can't be done. As I mentioned, try something simpler first --
    >computers. How do you go about boiling their performance down to just one
    >number that lets you choose the better one?
    >


    Fair enough -- Give me a set of 5 numbers which are consistent from
    manufacturer to manufacturer.

    Let me decide which metric is more important to *me* -- As it is, there
    is virtually no information on RF performance in any way, shape or form
    on any of the cell phone boxes I have here.


    --
    Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal
    parts water and papertowel.
    -- Dennis Miller



  • Similar Threads

    1. alt.cellular.sprintpcs
    2. alt.cellular.verizon
    3. alt.cellular.ericsson
    4. Sony Ericsson
    5. alt.cellular.cingular



  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast