CDMA vs GSM indoors

Kyocera began offering phones that do not have a whip antenna. The
antenna is still external, but they are not whips. The phone models are
Kyocera 3245 and Kyocera KE414


Group Special Mobile wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:33:37 GMT, "Mr. Magoo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But you will *never* see CDMA handsets with internal only antennas.
>>>They always have a telescoping antenna.
>>
>>Verizon is selling CDMA phones with stub antennas now. So is Sprint.
>>CDMA vs. GSM doesn't change the laws of physics.
>
>
> Examples? I just question why it is that every CDMA phone that *I*
> have seen has a pull out whip antenna. I've not seen one that didn't.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To send an email reply send to
> GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com

---

› See More: CDMA vs GSM indoors

In article <[email protected]>,
Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:33:37 GMT, "Mr. Magoo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote:
> >
> >> But you will *never* see CDMA handsets with internal only antennas.
> >> They always have a telescoping antenna.
> >
> >Verizon is selling CDMA phones with stub antennas now. So is Sprint.
> >CDMA vs. GSM doesn't change the laws of physics.

Verizon

Motorola v60p
LG vx6000
etc

Sprint

bunch of samsungs
etc.

The whole reason the antanna's on the CDMA phones are extendable isn't
for CDMA, it is for Analog Roam. That is why you see digital only
phone's with just stubs.

--
Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap

The whole reason the antanna's on the CDMA phones are extendable isn't
for CDMA, it is for Analog Roam. That is why you see digital only
phone's with just stubs.

--
Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap

The whole reason the antanna's on the CDMA phones are extendable isn't
for CDMA, it is for Analog Roam. That is why you see digital only
phone's with just stubs.

--
Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap

Is that why three of my Sprint PCS single band phones have had an
extendable antenna?


jaminmc wrote:

> The whole reason the antanna's on the CDMA phones are extendable isn't
> for CDMA, it is for Analog Roam. That is why you see digital only
> phone's with just stubs.
>
> --
> Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
> Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap
>

In article <[email protected]>,
Jerome Zelinske <[email protected]> wrote:

> Is that why three of my Sprint PCS single band phones have had an
> extendable antenna?

Yup, higher frequency = shorter wave length. Einstein physics there.

Lower 800 Mhz needs longer antenna for longer wave length, hence
external/extensible.

Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:33:37 GMT, "Mr. Magoo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote:
> >
> >> But you will *never* see CDMA handsets with internal only antennas.
> >> They always have a telescoping antenna.
> >
> >Verizon is selling CDMA phones with stub antennas now. So is Sprint.
> >CDMA vs. GSM doesn't change the laws of physics.
>
> Examples? I just question why it is that every CDMA phone that *I*
> have seen has a pull out whip antenna. I've not seen one that didn't.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To send an email reply send to
> GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com

I'm looking at a Nokia 3585i in a Sprint ad this morning in the paper
and it doesn't have a stub antenna or a pull out antenna.

Mark

[posted via phonescoop.com]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:47:35 -0000, [email protected] (Mark F) wrote:

>Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
><[email protected]>:
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:33:37 GMT, "Mr. Magoo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote:
>> >
>> >> But you will *never* see CDMA handsets with internal only antennas.
>> >> They always have a telescoping antenna.
>> >
>> >Verizon is selling CDMA phones with stub antennas now. So is Sprint.
>> >CDMA vs. GSM doesn't change the laws of physics.
>>
>> Examples? I just question why it is that every CDMA phone that *I*
>> have seen has a pull out whip antenna. I've not seen one that didn't.
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> To send an email reply send to
>> GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com
>
>I'm looking at a Nokia 3585i in a Sprint ad this morning in the paper
>and it doesn't have a stub antenna or a pull out antenna.

Not according to nokiausa.com

http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/3585i

If you go to the user guide you most definitely see a pull out antenna
in the right rear.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To send an email reply send to
GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com

Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:47:35 -0000, [email protected] (Mark F) wrote:
>
> >Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
> ><[email protected]>:
> >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:33:37 GMT, "Mr. Magoo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> But you will *never* see CDMA handsets with internal only antennas.
> >> >> They always have a telescoping antenna.
> >> >
> >> >Verizon is selling CDMA phones with stub antennas now. So is Sprint.
> >> >CDMA vs. GSM doesn't change the laws of physics.
> >>
> >> Examples? I just question why it is that every CDMA phone that *I*
> >> have seen has a pull out whip antenna. I've not seen one that didn't.
> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >> To send an email reply send to
> >> GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com
> >
> >I'm looking at a Nokia 3585i in a Sprint ad this morning in the paper
> >and it doesn't have a stub antenna or a pull out antenna.
>
> Not according to nokiausa.com
>
> http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/3585i
>
> If you go to the user guide you most definitely see a pull out antenna
> in the right rear.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To send an email reply send to
> GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com

Yep...your right. Couldn't see it in the newpaper ad. I stand
corrected.

Mark

[posted via phonescoop.com]

Group Special Mobile wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:47:35 -0000, [email protected] (Mark F) wrote:
>
>> Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
>> <[email protected]>:
>>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:33:37 GMT, "Mr. Magoo" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But you will *never* see CDMA handsets with internal only
>>>>> antennas. They always have a telescoping antenna.
>>>>
>>>> Verizon is selling CDMA phones with stub antennas now. So is
>>>> Sprint. CDMA vs. GSM doesn't change the laws of physics.
>>>
>>> Examples? I just question why it is that every CDMA phone that *I*
>>> have seen has a pull out whip antenna. I've not seen one that
>>> didn't. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> To send an email reply send to
>>> GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com
>>
>> I'm looking at a Nokia 3585i in a Sprint ad this morning in the paper
>> and it doesn't have a stub antenna or a pull out antenna.
>
> Not according to nokiausa.com
>
> http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/3585i
>
> If you go to the user guide you most definitely see a pull out antenna
> in the right rear.

Then look at the SE T608. No external antenna.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:27:37 GMT, James Knott
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill Radio wrote:
>
>> And the hapless Sprint (and Qwest and Alltel) Nokia 6185 might have been a
>> better phone if it had a pull-out antenna.
>>
>
>One thing that bugs me, is "fashion over function". I prefer a phone with
>an external antenna, simply because it would likely be a better antenna
>than an internal one. I want a phone that works well, not one that
>sacrifices performance for style or gee whiz gadgets.

Amen, 'Bro.
As Alltel would say, 'You got THAT right!".