vB Easy Archive - just got a 9300 using it on cingular in chicago and very dissapointed!

Pages: 1

just got a 9300 using it on cingular in chicago and very dissapointed!
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: sindhiguy

this phone is awesome as a pda smartphone whatever
but reception wise it sucks on cingular
im so pissed i got it now
9300a is what i have euro version

Posted by: manchuia

well cingular mostly runs on the 850 band. You are using a phone that only has 1900, so you are banking on cingular's 1900 coverage which probably isn't that great. I would refrain from blaming the phone. Test it on t-mobile and see if the coverage is better?

Posted by: sbeindba

I have a 9300i from Europe. Works great on T-mobile in Chicago and elsewhere. Your problem is not the phone it is Cingular.

Manchuia- I have a Qtek 9100 that meets your criteria for a new phone. Interested???

Posted by: mch

The 9300a is a miserable performer on GSM 1900. One of the worst Nokias in terms of GSM 1900 reception. This has been observed by a few people in HF. People have been discussing it for a while.

On the other hand, the 9500a and 9300b have excellent GSM 1900 performance.

The 9300b has a different antenna than the 9300a (it sticks out a bit from the base of the phone). That may be part of the difference in terms of GSM 1900 when compared to the 9300b.

Yes, as others have pointed out, not having GSM 850 is almost certainly part of the issue. Probably not the whole issue though.

Posted by: manchuia

I have read the wonderful stories about the 9300 having bad RF, so my criticism may have been a bit harsh in assuming it was more user error than phone error. But, it's almost universally known that not having 850 while using a network that requires 850 (cingular) results in super poor signal even in city centres.

You have a couple of variables. Is it the phone has bad RF because the phone is known to have bad RF? Is he not in the city proper and is so relying more on the 850 bands than we know? Is the RF actually quite good 2 - 3 bars, but he is basing his judgement only on bar numbers (so arbitrary) and noticing that other phones get 4 - 5 in areas the 9300 is getting 2 - 3 (and then using that idea to mentaly distort the sound he is getting through the phone (that also might be attributed to a number of things like headset, bad handset, etc.)).

Sorry if I came off sounding like a smart as*, that wasn't my intention. The lack of 850 though is really not helping your cause though.

edit - my time with the SDA and many upon many reviews of the 9100 have me a bit worried about picking one up. PM me a price, condition, etc. I am currently awaiting a 9300. If I get the same signal issues it wont take me long to sell it and move on

Posted by: mch

The 9300a even performs badly on the 1900-only T-mobile network.

By "performs badly" I mean it can't make and receive calls in places where other GSM 1900 capable phones do fine (e.g. 6230a, 9500a, 9300b, etc.).

Even Nokia occasionally produces a dud in terms of RF performance. I remember the Nokia 6100 (GSM 1900 performance was poor) and the 8860 (TDMA).

Posted by: manchuia

hrm.. not comforting me

I will see how the RF is here in ATL. Its pretty saturated and I have to try hard to loose signal (deep deep inside stores or malls), otherwise every phone I have had (and it's been a lot

!) have been pegged at the max.

Oh well, worst case scenario is, if its that bad, I end up buying sbeinda's qtek... see everybody wins!

Posted by: mch

or get a 9300b or 9500a. It's a completely different experience on a GSM 1900 network.

Posted by: manchuia

well, I have been scouring ebay and althought they claim they have 850 versions. I can't really determine until they arrive. I will definately check the antenna though to physically see if I got a dud or a hero!

I have had the 9500, smashing phone, I always recommend it. It was a bit much for me, and I have that same reservation about the qtek. It's always easier for me to go to a different phone than it is to go back to an old phone, so if I had to go back down that road I would probably go to the qtek for its size and feature combination.

THIS IS IN NO WAY SAYING THE 9500 IS INFERIOR. Again, I recommend it highly and was one of the few phones I have had that I was super excited to get

. Who knows I will probably end up back with it if I keep going through phones like I have of late!

Posted by: 9x90

Wirelessly posted (Mobira Cityman 900: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Series80/2.0 Nokia9300/05.22 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1))

I have both a 9300a and 9300b and I have tested them side by side with both T-Mobile USA and Cingular SIMs. The 9300a is a dog in the US. The 9300b is far superior, I am not counting number of bars ... I am talking about having signal vs having NO SIGNAL.