3G phone with good reception?

So, is it just my bad luck or are there no UMTS phones with _excellent_
reception yet?

I've now had the chance to test out a Sony Ericsson K600i and a Nokia
6233, both tri-mode GSM and 2100MHz UMTS. Neither of them stack up
against my trusty old SE K700i for reception quality.

So, the test scenario included three Telstra USIMs and three Optus
USIMs, two separate locations, both handsets locked to "GSM only" mode
(ie, don't log onto a UMTS network), signal reading taken via Bluetooth
to a computer. In all cases, the K600i and 6223 were between 18 and
30dBm worse-off than the K700i. No matter what I did, I couldn't get
them to equal the K700i's reception on the same network. A simple "what
does the handset's dinky signal meter say" test agreed with them.

So, poor GSM radio in them because you should be using UMTS when-ever
possible? Maybe, but I don't often see a full-strength UMTS signal on
either network either.

PD

--
Paul Day
Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/

---

› See More: 3G phone with good reception?

2100MHz has much greater propagation loss, the phone rx has a poorer
signal to noise ratio (Eb/No)

Until the network providers increase the power and number of base
stations and piss everyone off who is concerned about electrosmog and
environmental issues then 3G will suck, maybe for ever.

"Paul Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: So, is it just my bad luck or are there no UMTS phones with
_excellent_
: reception yet?
:
: I've now had the chance to test out a Sony Ericsson K600i and a Nokia
: 6233, both tri-mode GSM and 2100MHz UMTS. Neither of them stack up
: against my trusty old SE K700i for reception quality.
:
: So, the test scenario included three Telstra USIMs and three Optus
: USIMs, two separate locations, both handsets locked to "GSM only" mode
: (ie, don't log onto a UMTS network), signal reading taken via
Bluetooth
: to a computer. In all cases, the K600i and 6223 were between 18 and
: 30dBm worse-off than the K700i. No matter what I did, I couldn't get
: them to equal the K700i's reception on the same network. A simple
"what
: does the handset's dinky signal meter say" test agreed with them.
:
: So, poor GSM radio in them because you should be using UMTS when-ever
: possible? Maybe, but I don't often see a full-strength UMTS signal on
: either network either.
:
: PD
:
: --
: Paul Day
: Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:10:42 +0800 Ed may have written:
> 2100MHz has much greater propagation loss, the phone rx has a poorer
> signal to noise ratio (Eb/No)
>
> Until the network providers increase the power and number of base
> stations and piss everyone off who is concerned about electrosmog and
> environmental issues then 3G will suck, maybe for ever.

Read the post again. I was comparing 900/1800MHz GSM performance between
the handsets.

PD

--
Paul Day
Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/

Paul Day wrote:
>
> So, poor GSM radio in them because you should be using UMTS when-ever
> possible? Maybe, but I don't often see a full-strength UMTS signal on
> either network either.

Don't forget UMTS is just WCDMA - and like vanilla CDMA the signal
indicator is indicative only - I've made calls on my UMTS handset (clear
ones at that) with 0 bars showing. Don't rely on it like GSM

Do you expect Telstra's 850MHz UMTS implementation to be any better?.
That's what 'Sol' + buddies are hoping for ...



"Ed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 2100MHz has much greater propagation loss, the phone rx has a poorer
> signal to noise ratio (Eb/No)
>
> Until the network providers increase the power and number of base
> stations and piss everyone off who is concerned about electrosmog and
> environmental issues then 3G will suck, maybe for ever.
>
> "Paul Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : So, is it just my bad luck or are there no UMTS phones with
> _excellent_
> : reception yet?
> :
> : I've now had the chance to test out a Sony Ericsson K600i and a Nokia
> : 6233, both tri-mode GSM and 2100MHz UMTS. Neither of them stack up
> : against my trusty old SE K700i for reception quality.
> :
> : So, the test scenario included three Telstra USIMs and three Optus
> : USIMs, two separate locations, both handsets locked to "GSM only" mode
> : (ie, don't log onto a UMTS network), signal reading taken via
> Bluetooth
> : to a computer. In all cases, the K600i and 6223 were between 18 and
> : 30dBm worse-off than the K700i. No matter what I did, I couldn't get
> : them to equal the K700i's reception on the same network. A simple
> "what
> : does the handset's dinky signal meter say" test agreed with them.
> :
> : So, poor GSM radio in them because you should be using UMTS when-ever
> : possible? Maybe, but I don't often see a full-strength UMTS signal on
> : either network either.
> :
> : PD
> :
> : --
> : Paul Day
> : Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/
>

That's an interesting test Paul and you are right- it is strange to be
seeing difference in singal level of 18 to 30 dB.

A couple of questions- what software were you using on the PC to read
the signal strength? Are you also able to see the GSM channel number
you are on? (what I'm getting at is that you should be certain that
when comparing the phones performance- you should be certain they are
all on the same channel.)

Also- were the difference similar for the two different operators - or
just one?

Fred

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:42:29 GMT Albinus may have written:
> > So, poor GSM radio in them because you should be using UMTS when-ever
> > possible? Maybe, but I don't often see a full-strength UMTS signal on
> > either network either.
>
> Don't forget UMTS is just WCDMA - and like vanilla CDMA the signal
> indicator is indicative only - I've made calls on my UMTS handset (clear
> ones at that) with 0 bars showing. Don't rely on it like GSM

Ah, very true. I've done similar with my CDMA handset over the years.

However, I did use the SE k600i as my primary phone for a week (on
Telstra/3 UMTS) and noticed reception quality over-all (ie, quality of
the audio, ability to hear) wasn't as flash as my k700i on GSM. Is that
the handset's poor reception or 3's UMTS network not being as extensive
as Telstra's GSM?

PD

--
Paul Day
Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/

On 25 Jul 2006 06:10:26 -0700 [email protected] may have written:
> A couple of questions- what software were you using on the PC

It was done using a program called BluePhoneElite under Mac OS X. It's a
Bluetooth mobile utility with modular mobile configuration so the
program knows how to query each model for SMSs, signal strength,
converting signal strength to dBm etc.

I would assume each handset's "signal strength" is actually register
storing it as a value out of 255. There _could_ be some error in the
conversion by the program of that register to a true dBm reading (out of
-110 for GSM I think it is?), but I wouldn't have thought _two_ handsets
of different manufacturer's would have the same conversion error.

Especially seeing you could easily check your calibration against
Nokia's own calibration by enabling NetMonitor. I'll enable NetMonitor
on the phone later and confirm that is in fact the case.

> to read the signal strength? Are you also able to see the GSM channel
> number you are on? (what I'm getting at is that you should be certain
> that when comparing the phones performance- you should be certain they
> are all on the same channel.)

Yes, very true. I can't pull the cell number out of the Sony Ericsson's,
but obviously can from the Nokias. Might grab a "known good reception"
Nokia GSM phone to throw into the mix to confirm at least it and the
6233 are on the same cell.

The _Cell ID_ always matched, but that's obviously not gospel. I also
did plenty of readings after leaving the phones sitting idle for a while
rather than just a single once-off reading. One of the test locations is
also in a depression and both Optus and Telstra have equipment close to
the site (according to the ACA), so my _assumption_ would be that they
were always on the same cell.

> Also- were the difference similar for the two different operators - or
> just one?

No, the difference was the same with both operators. I even swapped the
same operator's SIM cards between handsdets for good luck. With both
Telstra GSM and Optus GSM, the k600i and 6233 were consistently
worse-off than the k700i. I never once saw the k600i or the 6233 equal
the k700i's signal reading during testing - both by pulling the dBm
reading from the handset and by comparing the dinky little
signal-strength meter on the handsets.

PD

--
Paul Day
Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/

I've had a look at the BluePhoneElite website - but their FAQ isn't
much help (technically)- and I'm not a Mac user so I can't test it.

Doing the comparison between BluePhoneElite and Nokia's NetMon would be
a good test for the Nokia at least.

I'm at a loss- because a difference in signal strength of 18 to 30 dB
is not expected even for different mobiles in the same location. My
only guess is that the software is not pulling out the figures
correctly from the mobiles.

I'll have a think about it for a while longer and get back to you....

Fred

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That's an interesting test Paul and you are right- it is strange to be
> seeing difference in singal level of 18 to 30 dB.
>
> A couple of questions- what software were you using on the PC to read
> the signal strength? Are you also able to see the GSM channel number
> you are on? (what I'm getting at is that you should be certain that
> when comparing the phones performance- you should be certain they are
> all on the same channel.)
>
> Also- were the difference similar for the two different operators - or
> just one?
>
> Fred
>

It's possible he was looking at C1/C2 values, which are on a logarithmic
scale and derived from RLA but also depend on BCCH parameters which can vary
from cell to cell (particular GSM900 vs GSM1800).

"Albinus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul Day wrote:
> >
> > So, poor GSM radio in them because you should be using UMTS when-ever
> > possible? Maybe, but I don't often see a full-strength UMTS signal on
> > either network either.
>
> Don't forget UMTS is just WCDMA - and like vanilla CDMA the signal
> indicator is indicative only - I've made calls on my UMTS handset (clear
> ones at that) with 0 bars showing. Don't rely on it like GSM

Strike 2,

He was using the phone in 2G mode

Paul Day,
Do you expect Telstra's 850MHz UMTS implementation to be any better?.


"Intel Inside" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Do you expect Telstra's 850MHz UMTS implementation to be any better?.
> That's what 'Sol' + buddies are hoping for ...
>
>
>
> "Ed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 2100MHz has much greater propagation loss, the phone rx has a poorer
>> signal to noise ratio (Eb/No)
>>
>> Until the network providers increase the power and number of base
>> stations and piss everyone off who is concerned about electrosmog and
>> environmental issues then 3G will suck, maybe for ever.
>>
>> "Paul Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> : So, is it just my bad luck or are there no UMTS phones with
>> _excellent_
>> : reception yet?
>> :
>> : I've now had the chance to test out a Sony Ericsson K600i and a Nokia
>> : 6233, both tri-mode GSM and 2100MHz UMTS. Neither of them stack up
>> : against my trusty old SE K700i for reception quality.
>> :
>> : So, the test scenario included three Telstra USIMs and three Optus
>> : USIMs, two separate locations, both handsets locked to "GSM only" mode
>> : (ie, don't log onto a UMTS network), signal reading taken via
>> Bluetooth
>> : to a computer. In all cases, the K600i and 6223 were between 18 and
>> : 30dBm worse-off than the K700i. No matter what I did, I couldn't get
>> : them to equal the K700i's reception on the same network. A simple
>> "what
>> : does the handset's dinky signal meter say" test agreed with them.
>> :
>> : So, poor GSM radio in them because you should be using UMTS when-ever
>> : possible? Maybe, but I don't often see a full-strength UMTS signal on
>> : either network either.
>> :
>> : PD
>> :
>> : --
>> : Paul Day
>> : Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/
>>
>
>

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:19:01 GMT Intel Inside may have written:
> Paul Day,
> Do you expect Telstra's 850MHz UMTS implementation to be any better?.

Yes. 850MHz will propagate further than 2100MHz and Sol's buddies are
putting effort into the deployment because they _need_ it to meet CDMA's
footprint.

PD

--
Paul Day
Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/

"Paul Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:19:01 GMT Intel Inside may have written:
>> Paul Day,
>> Do you expect Telstra's 850MHz UMTS implementation to be any better?.
>
> Yes. 850MHz will propagate further than 2100MHz and Sol's buddies are
> putting effort into the deployment because they _need_ it to meet CDMA's
> footprint.

no they don't. so what if it does not meet cdma footprint. no legal way they
can be forced to provide it, apart from a bull**** promise that was given to
coonan.

>
> PD
>
> --
> Paul Day
> Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/



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

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:44:46 +1000 thegoons may have written:
> > Yes. 850MHz will propagate further than 2100MHz and Sol's buddies
> > are putting effort into the deployment because they _need_ it to
> > meet CDMA's footprint.
>
> no they don't. so what if it does not meet cdma footprint. no legal
> way they can be forced to provide it, apart from a bull**** promise
> that was given to coonan.

Yes, sorry - you're dead right. They've _promised_ it will meet CDMA's
footprint. But the Senate Estimates transcripts show there is _nothing_
mroe than a promise. The government enquired about putting it in a
contract, Telstra said "Why do we need a contract? We've made a
promise!" and not much more has happenned that I've seen.

I can't see much reason why they'd save a few bucks by decommissioning a
CDMA site completely rather than re-using it for UMTS, but wether the
single 850MHz UMTS cell has the same sized foot-print of the original
850MHz CDMA cell is open to debate...

PD

--
Paul Day
Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/