|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > March 2006 > Best GSM Phone for Cingular Network?
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]
| Author |
Best GSM Phone for Cingular Network?
|
|
|
| I was an AT&T Wireless customer in Northern California, which then became
Cingular. I am trying to identify the best GSM phone currently made for
these requirements:
1) I need extremely good reception, and this characteristic is by far the
most important feature for me. I have a Siemens S55 now, and the reception
is not good. The signal strength fades in an out in areas that should be
getting great GSM coverage. I need something at least twice as loud and
clear.
2) I need superb support for a bluetooth wireless headset. I find hassling
with the wires for a headset to be too difficult in many mobile
applications. I would still like the option
for a wired headset.
3) I need some simple SMS and paging capabilities, nothing exotic. I
definitely don't need to browse the Internet on a cell phone.
4) I don't need fancy colors, or cameras, or any other high end features.
What are some candidates based on these requirements, and is there a review
that shows reception quality for multiple GSM phones in a consumer reports
type tabulation?
--
Will
| |
|
| Somewhere around Thu, 9 Mar 2006 22:21:19 -0800, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from "Will"
<westes-usc@noemail.nospam>:
>I was an AT&T Wireless customer in Northern California, which then became
>Cingular. I am trying to identify the best GSM phone currently made for
>these requirements:
>
>1) I need extremely good reception, and this characteristic is by far the
>most important feature for me. I have a Siemens S55 now, and the reception
>is not good. The signal strength fades in an out in areas that should be
>getting great GSM coverage. I need something at least twice as loud and
>clear.
>
>2) I need superb support for a bluetooth wireless headset. I find hassling
>with the wires for a headset to be too difficult in many mobile
>applications. I would still like the option
>for a wired headset.
>
>3) I need some simple SMS and paging capabilities, nothing exotic. I
>definitely don't need to browse the Internet on a cell phone.
>
>4) I don't need fancy colors, or cameras, or any other high end features.
>
>What are some candidates based on these requirements, and is there a review
>that shows reception quality for multiple GSM phones in a consumer reports
>type tabulation?
Nokias are known to generally have good reception quality; I think Motorolas
are also generally good. I'm happy with my V3 RAZR reception, and I think
the bluetooth is good with the right devices.
It's hard to find a bluetooth phone without camera and other high-end
features, though.
--
Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx
| |
| Bob Walker 2006-03-10, 5:48 pm |
|
"Will" <westes-usc@noemail.nospam> wrote in message
news:PMednbXpKdNfh4z
ZRVn-rg@giganews.com...
>I was an AT&T Wireless customer in Northern California, which then became
> Cingular. I am trying to identify the best GSM phone currently made for
> these requirements:
>
> 1) I need extremely good reception, and this characteristic is by far the
> most important feature for me. I have a Siemens S55 now, and the
> reception
> is not good. The signal strength fades in an out in areas that should
> be
> getting great GSM coverage. I need something at least twice as loud and
> clear.
>
> 2) I need superb support for a bluetooth wireless headset. I find
> hassling
> with the wires for a headset to be too difficult in many mobile
> applications. I would still like the option
> for a wired headset.
>
> 3) I need some simple SMS and paging capabilities, nothing exotic. I
> definitely don't need to browse the Internet on a cell phone.
>
> 4) I don't need fancy colors, or cameras, or any other high end features.
>
> What are some candidates based on these requirements, and is there a
> review
> that shows reception quality for multiple GSM phones in a consumer reports
> type tabulation?
>
> --
> Will
>
>
I have been very happy with both Motorola V551 and V557. I use a
Plantronics Discovery 640 bluetooth headset.
Bob
| |
| lun4tik 2006-03-11, 5:48 am |
| Just getting a 64k Cingular orange sim will improve your signal.
"Bob Walker" <rowalker@nospam.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:fJjQf.35883$_S7.5711@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Will" <westes-usc@noemail.nospam> wrote in message
> news:PMednbXpKdNfh4z
ZRVn-rg@giganews.com...
>
>
> I have been very happy with both Motorola V551 and V557. I use a
> Plantronics Discovery 640 bluetooth headset.
>
> Bob
>
| |
|
| For requirement #1, anything from Nokia. We live in a fringe area
and tried many different phones here. Most would not work from
my house. The only phones we tried that did work (and worked
well) were the Nokia 6620, 6230 and Motorola RAZR V3.
"Will" <westes-usc@noemail.nospam> wrote in message
news:PMednbXpKdNfh4z
ZRVn-rg@giganews.com...
>I was an AT&T Wireless customer in Northern California, which then became
> Cingular. I am trying to identify the best GSM phone currently made for
> these requirements:
>
> 1) I need extremely good reception, and this characteristic is by far the
> most important feature for me. I have a Siemens S55 now, and the
> reception
> is not good. The signal strength fades in an out in areas that should
> be
> getting great GSM coverage. I need something at least twice as loud and
> clear.
>
> 2) I need superb support for a bluetooth wireless headset. I find
> hassling
> with the wires for a headset to be too difficult in many mobile
> applications. I would still like the option
> for a wired headset.
>
> 3) I need some simple SMS and paging capabilities, nothing exotic. I
> definitely don't need to browse the Internet on a cell phone.
>
> 4) I don't need fancy colors, or cameras, or any other high end features.
>
> What are some candidates based on these requirements, and is there a
> review
> that shows reception quality for multiple GSM phones in a consumer reports
> type tabulation?
>
> --
> Will
>
>
| |
|
|
Razr V3!!
...
bamp
"RobR" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:9IVQf.233$%b.37@trndny09...
> For requirement #1, anything from Nokia. We live in a fringe area
> and tried many different phones here. Most would not work from
> my house. The only phones we tried that did work (and worked
> well) were the Nokia 6620, 6230 and Motorola RAZR V3.
>
>
> "Will" <westes-usc@noemail.nospam> wrote in message
> news:PMednbXpKdNfh4z
ZRVn-rg@giganews.com...
>
>
| |
|
| Hi Will,
Why not consider Samsung ZX10 when you are getting it for a low
subscriber price? The other applications remain on the phone but what
the hell ..... I am getting it for 99$ ...lol
| |
|
| Unless Samsung phones have changed substantially, since
my wife owned one a few years ago, the ZX10 will not
meet his first criteria, a phone with extremely good
reception.
"USIM" <pramodmr@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142240627.939991.38840@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Will,
>
> Why not consider Samsung ZX10 when you are getting it for a low
> subscriber price? The other applications remain on the phone but what
> the hell ..... I am getting it for 99$ ...lol
>
| |
|
| I just got my first cell phone, a Nokia 6102, works great.
A version with Bluetooth, 6102i, is expected out soon.
"Will" <westes-usc@noemail.nospam> wrote in message
news:PMednbXpKdNfh4z
ZRVn-rg@giganews.com...
>I was an AT&T Wireless customer in Northern California, which then became
> Cingular. I am trying to identify the best GSM phone currently made for
> these requirements:
>
> 1) I need extremely good reception, and this characteristic is by far the
> most important feature for me. I have a Siemens S55 now, and the
> reception
> is not good. The signal strength fades in an out in areas that should
> be
> getting great GSM coverage. I need something at least twice as loud and
> clear.
>
> 2) I need superb support for a bluetooth wireless headset. I find
> hassling
> with the wires for a headset to be too difficult in many mobile
> applications. I would still like the option
> for a wired headset.
>
> 3) I need some simple SMS and paging capabilities, nothing exotic. I
> definitely don't need to browse the Internet on a cell phone.
>
> 4) I don't need fancy colors, or cameras, or any other high end features.
>
> What are some candidates based on these requirements, and is there a
> review
> that shows reception quality for multiple GSM phones in a consumer reports
> type tabulation?
>
> --
> Will
>
>
>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-16, 5:48 am |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <UrwQf.641$%e1.134@trnddc05> on Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:08:04 GMT, "lun4tik"
<lun4tik@verizon.net> wrote:
>Just getting a 64k Cingular orange sim will improve your signal.
Actually not. The 64K ENS SIM only makes a difference in an ENS capable
phone, and even then it only allows Cingular to manually "home" the phone OTA
(over the air) to either the "orange" (old Cingular) network or "blue" (old
ATTWS) network. With or without ENS, phones homed to either network will roam
on the other network. In most cases ENS makes little difference. See the FAQ
for more info.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-16, 5:48 am |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
Current Samsung phones compare well to other major brands, including Nokia and
Motorola.
In <BgjRf.1362$%b.96@trndny09> on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:57:37 GMT, "RobR"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>Unless Samsung phones have changed substantially, since
>my wife owned one a few years ago, the ZX10 will not
>meet his first criteria, a phone with extremely good
>reception.
>
>"USIM" <pramodmr@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1142240627.939991.38840@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
The V3 razr and sliver are rated at the top of the list for reception at
cingular right now
John Navas Wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> Current Samsung phones compare well to other major brands, including
> Nokia and
> Motorola.
>
> In <BgjRf.1362$%b.96@trndny09> on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:57:37 GMT,
> "RobR"
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> what
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas
> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
--
MR.C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t208387.html
| |
|
| The RAZR is great, I agree, but it's no 6230 or 6620. Of course
Cingular may no longer sell those for all I know.
"MR.C" <MR.C.24yq6g@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
news:MR.C.24yq6g@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>
> The V3 razr and sliver are rated at the top of the list for reception at
> cingular right now
>
> John Navas Wrote:
>
>
> --
> MR.C
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
> View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t208387.html
>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-21, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
Indeed -- the RAZR is better. :) My only complaints with the RAZR are the
form factor (which I find uncomfortable to hold) and the lack of EGPRS(EDGE).
In <dc1Uf.7177$092.1387@trndny04> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 00:51:21 GMT, "RobR"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>The RAZR is great, I agree, but it's no 6230 or 6620. Of course
>Cingular may no longer sell those for all I know.
>
>"MR.C" <MR.C.24yq6g@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
>news:MR.C.24yq6g@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
John Navas Wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> Indeed -- the RAZR is better. :) My only complaints with the RAZR are
> the
> form factor (which I find uncomfortable to hold) and the lack of
> EGPRS(EDGE).
>
> In <dc1Uf.7177$092.1387@trndny04> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 00:51:21 GMT,
> "RobR"
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> reception at
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas
> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
as to your edge question, the edge only works in areas that have that
tech nology in its towers.
--
MR.C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t208387.html
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-28, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <MR.C.25djil@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> on Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:24:11
-0600, MR.C <MR.C.25djil@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote:
>John Navas Wrote:
[color=darkred]
>as to your edge question, the edge only works in areas that have that
>tech nology in its towers.
True, but EGPRS(EDGE) is widely available on Cingular.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|
|
|
|
|