|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cell Phone Tech Discussion > October 2006 > Cell Phone Range?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| HotRod 2006-08-28, 10:33 am |
| My company currently uses dozens of different cell phones with all kinds of
different brands. The employee can choose what ever cell they prefer but all
with the same carrier service. Anyway the problem that we are having is that
at some of our sites some of the phones get a great signal and others don't
work at all. My sony-Ericsson T637 seems to work the best of them all. Some
phones that are identical get different signals. but what I'm wondering is
As we buy new phones how can we determine which cells will work the greatest
range? What makes a cell phone able to call and recieve calls from remote
locations?
| |
| Jorgen Moquist 2006-08-28, 10:33 pm |
| HotRod wrote:
> My company currently uses dozens of different cell phones with all kinds of
> different brands. The employee can choose what ever cell they prefer but all
> with the same carrier service. Anyway the problem that we are having is that
> at some of our sites some of the phones get a great signal and others don't
> work at all. My sony-Ericsson T637 seems to work the best of them all. Some
> phones that are identical get different signals. but what I'm wondering is
>
> As we buy new phones how can we determine which cells will work the greatest
> range? What makes a cell phone able to call and recieve calls from remote
> locations?
>
>
ot: a digital gsm cell phone range is about 20000 meters.
less when rain or snow i've been told.
i dont know about other standards like amps, damps etc.
/Jorgen
| |
| HotRod 2006-08-29, 7:33 am |
| I'm wondering when shopping for new phones if there is a wattage etc. that
will tell me what range I can expect.
"Jorgen Moquist" <jorgen.moquist@n.o.s.p.a.m.mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote in
message news:WTMIg.25$Yc3.17@nntpserver.swip.net...
> HotRod wrote:
> ot: a digital gsm cell phone range is about 20000 meters.
> less when rain or snow i've been told.
> i dont know about other standards like amps, damps etc.
> /Jorgen
| |
| Jorgen Moquist 2006-08-29, 10:33 pm |
| >>HotRod wrote:
>
>
>
-------- hotrod
I'm wondering when shopping for new phones if there is a wattage etc.
that
will tell me what range I can expect.
-------- hotrod
range for a digital phone like gsm.
if its to far away from the cell its not in sync and cannot communicate.
i dont think wattage has any difference, watt is when sending.
one has to listen as well.
the t637 is gsm850/gsm1800/gsm1900
and has probably a better handling for radio reflections. (recieving).
and sorting out a better signal. ( just a guess).
/Jörgen
| |
| Cavity Search 2006-09-04, 4:33 am |
| "HotRod" <NoSpam@YourEmail.com> wrote in message
news:12f8bohjut5d10c
@corp.supernews.com...
> I'm wondering when shopping for new phones if there is a wattage etc. that
> will tell me what range I can expect.
Not really. Maximum transmitting power for cell phones is fixed by the FCC,
and I'm quite sure no cell phone maker is going to go less than the max.
You can look for a few things. In the very most general way, cell phones
with real antennas may get better coverage than ones with built-in antennas,
usually, sometimes. No doubt some folks will pipe up with experiences that
blow this theory away, and in fact I have a phone with a built in antenna
that gets slightly better signals than others I've used.
What I look for is a phone with an external antenna plug. You can find a
list of available adapters at www.wilsonelectronics.com . The phones where
adapters are listed can be hooked up to an external antenna, which mounts
either to your car, house, or even an amplifier/antenna system. It sounds
like a hassle, but all you do is pop the magnetic mount antenna on the roof
of your car, run the cable through a door jam, stick it under the seat, and
plug the end into your phone. You then get a much stronger signal and less
dead zones. When you get out of the car, just unplug it and go on your way.
I won't buy a phone without this option. That's how good the reception is
with these things.
Best part is, if you rent a car, or drive a company car, just take it off
your roof and transplant it. Or buy another one.
These are cheap, roughly $40 or so.
CS
| |
|
| "Cavity Search" <phamaps@linkline.com> wrote in message
news:12fnbll4un0pma2
@corp.supernews.com...
> "HotRod" <NoSpam@YourEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:12f8bohjut5d10c
@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Not really. Maximum transmitting power for cell phones is fixed by the
> FCC,
> and I'm quite sure no cell phone maker is going to go less than the max.
>
> You can look for a few things. In the very most general way, cell phones
> with real antennas may get better coverage than ones with built-in
> antennas,
> usually, sometimes. No doubt some folks will pipe up with experiences
> that
> blow this theory away, and in fact I have a phone with a built in antenna
> that gets slightly better signals than others I've used.
>
> What I look for is a phone with an external antenna plug. You can find a
> list of available adapters at www.wilsonelectronics.com . The phones
> where
> adapters are listed can be hooked up to an external antenna, which mounts
> either to your car, house, or even an amplifier/antenna system. It sounds
> like a hassle, but all you do is pop the magnetic mount antenna on the
> roof
> of your car, run the cable through a door jam, stick it under the seat,
> and
> plug the end into your phone. You then get a much stronger signal and
> less
> dead zones. When you get out of the car, just unplug it and go on your
> way.
>
> I won't buy a phone without this option. That's how good the reception is
> with these things.
>
> Best part is, if you rent a car, or drive a company car, just take it off
> your roof and transplant it. Or buy another one.
>
> These are cheap, roughly $40 or so.
>
> CS
Have you also tried the mobile amplifier? Seems like using the external ant
would work best with a hands free/bluetooth set up?
John
| |
| Cavity Search 2006-09-27, 7:33 am |
| "John" < Jwh_fla_nospam@hotma
il.com> wrote in message
news:LspMg.37426$_q4.9737@dukeread09...
> "Cavity Search" <phamaps@linkline.com> wrote in message
> news:12fnbll4un0pma2
@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Have you also tried the mobile amplifier? Seems like using the external
> ant would work best with a hands free/bluetooth set up?
Haven't tried a mobile amp yet. Frankly, I'd only need such a thing in an
emergency, and if I need to pump out 2 or 3 watts to contact someone,
they're probably too far away to be of much use.
A CB radio would be cheaper and more helpful, however, I may end up getting
an amp in the future, if nothing more than the value as another gadget among
(too) many.
An external antenna works great when you really need it, regardless of how
you use the phone. Right now I'm using it for data, but it's always in the
car just in case.
Now that I have a bluetooth headset, it'll be much handier.
CS
| |
| thuy@gta-wireless.com 2006-10-24, 10:33 pm |
| GSM phones tend to have better reception. In North America, we use the
850 and 1900 frequencies. Rogers actually uses both so they give
better reception. If you cannot change your service provider, buy a
phone with an external antannae, and preferably with both the 850 and
1900 frequencies.
thuy@gta-wireless.com
Cavity Search wrote:
> "John" < Jwh_fla_nospam@hotma
il.com> wrote in message
> news:LspMg.37426$_q4.9737@dukeread09...
>
> Haven't tried a mobile amp yet. Frankly, I'd only need such a thing in an
> emergency, and if I need to pump out 2 or 3 watts to contact someone,
> they're probably too far away to be of much use.
>
> A CB radio would be cheaper and more helpful, however, I may end up getting
> an amp in the future, if nothing more than the value as another gadget among
> (too) many.
>
> An external antenna works great when you really need it, regardless of how
> you use the phone. Right now I'm using it for data, but it's always in the
> car just in case.
>
> Now that I have a bluetooth headset, it'll be much handier.
>
> CS
|
|
|
|
|