tMobile, Phila PA - USA Area: Which Freq?

I switched to tMobile some months ago and am trying to explain to myself why the
signal is so poor compared to my old Cingular TDMA phones.

One thing that caught my ear was somebody's assertion that one freq or the other
(1900 or 850/900) had superior building penetration.

Building penetration (even in my own house) seems tb a possible explaination bc
once I go outside, I can always get at least a couple of bars.

At my main client's site, I see some people (preseumably on other carriers)
walking around inside talking on cell phones. Never a chance for me and my
tMobile Moto v180...

Any thoughts?
--
PeteCresswell

---

› See More: tMobile, Phila PA - USA Area: Which Freq?

Per Cyrus Afzali:
>Motorola is generally regarded to have poorer RF characteristics than
>Nokia and other brands. IOW, if you're in a "fringe" signal area, you
>may find you do better with a Nokia.
>
>Have you tried the 3390 or any other Nokia in the same area and made a
>comparison?

I just copied my v180's phonebook to SIM an then moved the entries to a 3595
that I keep as a spare/on-the-water phone.

The Moto was at zero or one bars and had to try a couple times to register
itself on the nework.

The Nokia came up immediately registered on the network and is showing 1-2 bars,
occasionally 3.

Tomorrow morning I'm going up to a client's site that's 100% undoable with the
v180 - yet has the occasional person walking around inside talking on a cell
phone. Then we'll see...

Thanks for the tip.
--
PeteCresswell

Per Cyrus Afzali:
>Motorola is generally regarded to have poorer RF characteristics than
>Nokia and other brands. IOW, if you're in a "fringe" signal area, you
>may find you do better with a Nokia.
>
>Have you tried the 3390 or any other Nokia in the same area and made a
>comparison?

My #2 daughter's using the 3390 - because of it's simplicity she prefers it over
the other two I offered up.

Per the other post, I tried a 3595. At first I thought I was getting another
bar or so at home, but at the client site it, too, offered zero bars.

I'm still wondering about the 850/900 vs 1900 thing - not so much because of the
client site, which most people find pretty poor, but more because of the spotty
performance at home.
--
PeteCresswell

"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I switched to tMobile some months ago and am trying to explain to myself
>why the
> signal is so poor compared to my old Cingular TDMA phones.

T-Mobile is 1900 ONLY.

> One thing that caught my ear was somebody's assertion that one freq or the
> other
> (1900 or 850/900) had superior building penetration.

The lower the frequency, the better the penetration.

> Building penetration (even in my own house) seems tb a possible
> explaination bc
> once I go outside, I can always get at least a couple of bars.

Sounds like at least part of the problem!

"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I'm still wondering about the 850/900 vs 1900 thing - not so much because
> of the
> client site, which most people find pretty poor, but more because of the
> spotty
> performance at home.

It is definatly a possibility, however, keep in mind that T-Mobile ONLY has
1900 PCS frequencies.