Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 104
  1. #16
    Brian Elfert
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now

    [email protected] (Don Klipstein) writes:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    >MrPepper11 wrote:


    > The companies expand their capacity and deploy improved technologies,
    >and get more customers to take up most of the added slack. Meanwhile,
    >I have noticed that my signal quality is better than it was a few years
    >ago, although is still not perfect.


    I've noticed huge improvements in signal quality in fringe areas in the
    past year or two.

    When I am in the metro area of Minneapolis/St. Paul, or on a major highway
    in the 5 state area, I would say 95% of my cell calls go through with no
    quality problems at all.

    I can now go into rural areas 20 miles from a town of any size and still
    get full digital service. This area used to be analog with fairly decent
    coverage, but went digital in the last year. With digital, I can make
    calls with one bar of signal and the quality will be fine where analog
    would be total static.

    There is another area that used to get two bars of analog if you stood in
    just the right spot. Now, there is one or two bars of digital in the
    whole area.

    Cell service continues to get better and better at least for me.

    Brian Elfert



    See More: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now




  2. #17
    Steven M. Scharf
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now

    "MrPepper11" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    <snip>

    Stupid article. A cellular phone is a two way radio. It will never be as
    good as a landline. You choose the carrier with the best coverage for the
    places you go, and hope for the best. If I chose Cingular, I would never
    have any dropped calls at my house, because Cingular has no signal here,
    most of the time, yet Verizon, and AT&T TDMA, are excellent. The situation
    may be different elsewhere.





  3. #18
    Rod Speed
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now


    George <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> Don Klipstein <[email protected]> wrote
    >>> MrPepper11 wrote:


    >>>>One out of three cellphone calls had quality problems last year.
    >>>><SNIP>
    >>>>In an attempt to eradicate the dropped calls and dead zones that plague
    >>>>cellphone users, wireless companies have spent small fortunes trying to
    >>>>improve their networks. As part of a telecom mergers boom, last fall,
    >>>>Cingular Wireless bought AT&T Wireless for $41 billion, in part to get
    >>>>access to additional network capacity.


    >>>>But billions of dollars in investments later and several mergers
    >>>>further -- and at a time when some 11 million customers have ditched
    >>>>their traditional phone service and become more reliant on cellphones
    >>>>-- the long-promised improvement still hasn't come. This is an enormous
    >>>>source of bafflement and irritation to consumers, whose patience has
    >>>>begun to run out as evidenced by a continuing high volume of complaints.


    >>>>Roughly one out of three cellphone calls had quality problems of some
    >>>>kind last year, according to an online survey by J.D. Power &
    >>>>Associates of 21,700 wireless customers. The result was essentially
    >>>>unchanged from the 2003 survey, the first year it was conducted.
    >>>>Besides dropped calls and an inability to connect, callers constantly
    >>>>experienced interference, echoes and voice distortion.


    >>> The companies expand their capacity and deploy improved technologies,
    >>> and get more customers to take up most of the added slack. Meanwhile,
    >>> I have noticed that my signal quality is better than it was a few years
    >>> ago, although is still not perfect.


    >>> Most cellphone transmissions use some sort or another of digital
    >>> technology at least part of the way, apparently with the signal going in
    >>> "packets" the way internet communications work, although with need to do
    >>> what they can in real time if any packets get lost or delayed in a traffic
    >>> jam or on a leg where the signal is weak.


    >>> The ratio of transmission capacity to demand will have to go up an order
    >>> of magnitude or two in order to make cell phone quality like that of
    >>> landlines.


    >> Wrong.


    >>> So will signal/noise ratios,


    >> Wrong again. Irrelevant with a digital system, stupid.


    >>> and will the people living near cell towers not
    >>> complain if their output power increases 10x,


    >> Thats not what its about with a digital system, stupid.


    > I can't think of anything involving the use of radio waves where the S/N ratio
    > is not an important consideration.


    Your problem. One obvious example is with GSM
    where the range is determined by the digital cliff
    and has nothing to do with the S/N ratio at all.

    In spades with the channel capacity which also
    has nothing to do with the S/N ratio either.

    > S/N ratio has a lot to do with the ability to make and carry a call even on
    > digital systems.


    Nope, **** all with GSM particularly. Its a system that is
    designed to have a relatively high base density so S/N
    is essentially irrelevant. The range is determined by the
    digital cliff where the base ignores handsets past a specified
    range, determined digitally, essentially so handsets further
    out dont bleed into the adjacent channel time wise.

    > One of the key things that is measured when doing system quality tests is S/N
    > ratio.


    Its much more complicated than that with digital
    system capacity, what was actually being discussed.

    >>> and what will people think if their phones put 10x as much radiation
    >>> into their brains (regardless of actual degree of health threat),


    >> Thats not what its about with a digital system, stupid.


    >>> and need for 10x as much battery weight and size?


    >> Pathetic, really.


    >>> Otherwise increase the number of cell
    >>> towers a good order of magnitude -


    >> Not necessary either.


    >>> what will people say then?


    >> Taint gunna happen. No need for that.


    >>> I think cell users are actually getting a pretty good deal.
    >>> My phone works fully with no lost or garbled words or
    >>> severe noises or dropped calls or calls not going through
    >>> about 99% of the time and usably for most of the other
    >>> 1% of the time. I do expect the situation to improve over
    >>> the years,


    >> It already has, most obviously with cdma, stupid.


    >>> although far from everyone will have an improvement every year


    >> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist stupids, stupid ?


    >>> - in many locations in many years expect that year to
    >>> be one where the capability is not outpacing the demand.


    >> That should just result in an inability to initiate
    >> calls with a properly configured system.






  4. #19
    bamp
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now


    "Andrew White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Joseph <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:51:39 -0500, "bamp" <bampatcenturyteldotnet>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>Horsefeathers! Get a V400 on Cingular and do away with dropped calls.
    >>>Worked
    >>>for me.

    >>
    >>You are under the false assumption that dropped calls are only the
    >>result of a substandard handset.

    >
    > It can be a VERY significant part of the problem. I switched to AT&T
    > Wireless/Cingular GSM from Verizon and got myself a fairly expensive
    > Motorola v551. I then switched my wife's line over as well, but got
    > her Motorola v220 because she didn't need Bluetooth. WHAT A
    > DIFFERENCE! I've tested the two phones side by side at our home, where
    > the signal is marginal (1 to 2 bars max). I never have problems
    > placing, receiving or maintaining connection with v551, but I can
    > pretty much NEVER place, receive or maintain calls with her v220. I
    > just got off the phone with Cingular - I'm replacing her v220 for
    > another v551.
    >
    > Of course, when you're in an area with no coverage, no handset is
    > going to help you. But if you're in an area with marginal coverage, a
    > handset with great RF performance makes ALL the difference in the
    > world!


    That's what I said earlier in this thread.

    bamp





  5. #20
    bamp
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now


    "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Wrong.
    >>
    >>
    >>>So will signal/noise ratios,

    >>
    >>
    >> Wrong again. Irrelevant with a digital system, stupid.
    >>
    >>
    >>>and will the people living near cell towers not
    >>>complain if their output power increases 10x,

    >>
    >>
    >> Thats not what its about with a digital system, stupid.

    >
    >
    > I can't think of anything involving the use of radio waves where the S/N
    > ratio is not an important consideration. S/N ratio has a lot to do with
    > the ability to make and carry a call even on digital systems. One of the
    > key things that is measured when doing system quality tests is S/N ratio.
    >

    Yep the better the S/N ratio of the handset, the fewer dropped calls.


    bamp





  6. #21
    Mij Adyaw
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now

    An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a marginal
    signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common problem is that the
    phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.

    "bamp" <bampatcenturyteldotnet> wrote in message
    news[email protected]
    >
    > "Andrew White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> Joseph <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:51:39 -0500, "bamp" <bampatcenturyteldotnet>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Horsefeathers! Get a V400 on Cingular and do away with dropped calls.
    >>>>Worked
    >>>>for me.
    >>>
    >>>You are under the false assumption that dropped calls are only the
    >>>result of a substandard handset.

    >>
    >> It can be a VERY significant part of the problem. I switched to AT&T
    >> Wireless/Cingular GSM from Verizon and got myself a fairly expensive
    >> Motorola v551. I then switched my wife's line over as well, but got
    >> her Motorola v220 because she didn't need Bluetooth. WHAT A
    >> DIFFERENCE! I've tested the two phones side by side at our home, where
    >> the signal is marginal (1 to 2 bars max). I never have problems
    >> placing, receiving or maintaining connection with v551, but I can
    >> pretty much NEVER place, receive or maintain calls with her v220. I
    >> just got off the phone with Cingular - I'm replacing her v220 for
    >> another v551.
    >>
    >> Of course, when you're in an area with no coverage, no handset is
    >> going to help you. But if you're in an area with marginal coverage, a
    >> handset with great RF performance makes ALL the difference in the
    >> world!

    >
    > That's what I said earlier in this thread.
    >
    > bamp
    >






  7. #22
    Rod Speed
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now


    "bamp" <bampatcenturyteldotnet> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> Rod Speed wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Wrong.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>So will signal/noise ratios,
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Wrong again. Irrelevant with a digital system, stupid.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>and will the people living near cell towers not
    >>>>complain if their output power increases 10x,
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Thats not what its about with a digital system, stupid.

    >>
    >>
    >> I can't think of anything involving the use of radio waves where the S/N
    >> ratio is not an important consideration. S/N ratio has a lot to do with the
    >> ability to make and carry a call even on digital systems. One of the key
    >> things that is measured when doing system quality tests is S/N ratio.


    > Yep the better the S/N ratio of the handset, the fewer dropped calls.


    Its much more complicated than that, most obviously with GSM.





  8. #23
    Steven M. Scharf
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now

    "bamp" <bampatcenturyteldotnet> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > Did you say that dropped calls are not the fault of a substandard handset?


    Rarely is this the case, because the handsets are not all that different in
    terms of how well they perform. Dropped calls on GSM are usually the result
    of trying to move from one cell to another cell, where the other cell has no
    capacity to take the handoff.

    Your statement that a V400 on Cingular will solve the problem is
    particularly ridiculous. This may have worked for you, but this means
    nothing. I can guarantee that it won't work for me, I have had three GSM
    phones, and never have been able to get a decent Cingular GSM signal, but
    have good TDMA and CDMA coverage. The first rule in selecting a carrier is
    to only choose a carrier that evolved from the old A or B AMPS carrier.
    These carriers have the infrastructure and the better spectrum.





  9. #24
    Notan
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now

    Mij Adyaw wrote:
    >
    > An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a marginal
    > signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common problem is that the
    > phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.


    I was under the impression that extendable antennas only
    enhanced analog signals, not digital.

    Wrong?

    Notan



  10. #25
    Rod Speed
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now


    Notan <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Mij Adyaw wrote


    >> An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a
    >> marginal signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common
    >> problem is that the phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.


    > I was under the impression that extendable antennas
    > only enhanced analog signals, not digital.


    > Wrong?


    Yes, wrong. Still works with digital cdma and while you cant buy
    them anymore with gsm, it worked with gsm when you could.





  11. #26
    Mij Adyaw
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now

    That is one the the reasons wny GSM systems are inferior to CDMA systems.
    They simply do not want to deal with replacing broken antennas.

    "Andrew White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a
    >>marginal
    >>signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common problem is that
    >>the
    >>phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.

    >
    > Those things have gone the way of horse-drawn carriages. I don't think
    > there's a single GSM phone on the market today with an extendable
    > antenna...






  12. #27
    Mij Adyaw
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now

    You are correct. The GSM companies removed them so that they would not have
    to deal with replacing broken antennas. It is that simple. A pull-out
    antenna will improve the performance for analog, GSM, CDMA, TDMA, ... etc.
    My GSM friends are constantly borrowing my SprintPCS phone with an external
    antenna whenever their GSM phone fails to make or hold a call.

    "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Notan <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> Mij Adyaw wrote

    >
    >>> An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a
    >>> marginal signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common
    >>> problem is that the phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.

    >
    >> I was under the impression that extendable antennas
    >> only enhanced analog signals, not digital.

    >
    >> Wrong?

    >
    > Yes, wrong. Still works with digital cdma and while you cant buy
    > them anymore with gsm, it worked with gsm when you could.
    >






  13. #28
    Rod Speed
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now


    Mij Adyaw <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:[email protected]

    > That is one the the reasons wny GSM systems are inferior to CDMA systems.


    Nope, its an inevitable consequence of the completely different
    design approach. GSM uses a high density of bases with a digital
    cliff that sees the base ignore handsets that are further away than
    a specified distance from the base, even when it can hear them.
    In THAT situation internal antennas work fine.

    CDMA is completely different with the technology allowing
    communication with more than one base at a time, and that
    means that the antenna requirements are quite different.

    > They simply do not want to deal with replacing broken antennas.


    That has absolutely nothing to do with it at all.


    > "Andrew White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a marginal
    >>>signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common problem is that the
    >>>phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.

    >>
    >> Those things have gone the way of horse-drawn carriages. I don't think
    >> there's a single GSM phone on the market today with an extendable
    >> antenna...

    >
    >






  14. #29
    Rod Speed
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now


    Mij Adyaw <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:[email protected]

    > You are correct. The GSM companies removed them so that they would not have to
    > deal with replacing broken antennas. It is that simple.


    Wrong. They basically just designed them better so they
    arent needed with the design philosophy that is the basis
    of GSM, a high density of bases with a digital cliff that
    sees the base ignore a handset thats further away then
    specified, so it doesnt bleed into another time slot.

    They initially had the stub antennas like with the Nokia
    5110 and have now gone to entirely internal antennas,
    because the entirely internal antennas perform well enough.

    Your broken antenna claim cant fly with the stubs like on the 5110.

    > A pull-out antenna will improve the performance for analog, GSM, CDMA, TDMA,
    > ... etc.


    Wrong. When you have an adequate
    signal level, the pull out antenna is useless.

    > My GSM friends are constantly borrowing my SprintPCS phone with an external
    > antenna whenever their GSM phone fails to make or hold a call.


    Separate issue entirely to whether a GSM handset with
    a pullout antenna will work any better in that location.

    > "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> Notan <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>> Mij Adyaw wrote

    >>
    >>>> An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a
    >>>> marginal signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common
    >>>> problem is that the phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.

    >>
    >>> I was under the impression that extendable antennas
    >>> only enhanced analog signals, not digital.

    >>
    >>> Wrong?

    >>
    >> Yes, wrong. Still works with digital cdma and while you cant buy
    >> them anymore with gsm, it worked with gsm when you could.
    >>

    >
    >






  15. #30
    Mij Adyaw
    Guest

    Re: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now

    Ok, assume that you are correct and that I have a GSM phone with a pull-out
    antenna. If I am very far from the nearest GSM cell site I will have a
    better chance of getting my signal to that remote cell site from a phone
    that has a pull-out antenna. Do you agree?


    >
    > Nope, its an inevitable consequence of the completely different
    > design approach. GSM uses a high density of bases with a digital
    > cliff that sees the base ignore handsets that are further away than
    > a specified distance from the base, even when it can hear them.
    > In THAT situation internal antennas work fine.
    >
    > CDMA is completely different with the technology allowing
    > communication with more than one base at a time, and that
    > means that the antenna requirements are quite different.
    >
    >> They simply do not want to deal with replacing broken antennas.

    >
    > That has absolutely nothing to do with it at all.
    >
    >
    >> "Andrew White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>An external pull-out antenna also makes all of the difference in a
    >>>>marginal
    >>>>signal area. In a marginal signal area, the most common problem is that
    >>>>the
    >>>>phone cannot get it's signal to the cell site.
    >>>
    >>> Those things have gone the way of horse-drawn carriages. I don't think
    >>> there's a single GSM phone on the market today with an extendable
    >>> antenna...

    >>
    >>

    >
    >






  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast