AWS 3G Signal Quality and the Perfect Cellular Device

[clonehappy]

First off, I will admit it: I am a device geek. This post probably isn't relevant to most/all T-Mobile or cellular users in general, but I need somewhere to (kind of) rant. Now, I understand that while my opinions definitely don't represent the Joe Public cellphone user, I believe that technology early-adopters and experimenters such as myself can form lots of opinions for others, so I try to be as unbiased and look for as many positive aspects about mobile devices and providers as I can.

I recently purchased a Nokia N900. I think this is quite possibly the best mobile device released to date, hands down beating the iPhone 3GS, BlackBerry (any), or Palm devices currently on the market. I have owned a plethora of cellular devices over the years, ranging from my first phone ever, a Motorola StarTac on Sprint PCS, all the way up to a BlackBerry 9700 on AT&T.

Some Background, My 2 Cents on Recent Devices:

iPhones
The iPhone 3GS was finally a usable device, the 2G was slow and lacked CPU speed, the 3G wasn't bad but didn't have the "kick in the pants" that the 3GS has to make the experience complete. All-in-all, a good device, but isn't very open and I still like a physical keyboard.

BlackBerries
The 8300 was my first BlackBerry, a well-rounded consumer device, as seen by the longevity it has had on the market. But it lacked 3G and the screen left a bit to be desired, so I moved on. After a brief stint with a Nokia N95-3 NAM (another well-deserving device), I jumped ship to Verizon for the BlackBerry Storm. The Storm 9530 had a lot of potential, but it seemed like a work in progress to me, something I can deal with, but the deal-breaker was Verizon's terrible signal quality in the buildings on the campus where I work. So, I jumped back to the 9000 on AT&T, and was happy with my experience overall. 3G, great physical keyboard, feels good in the hand, a bit low on memory, but overall in my top 3. Then I got the 9700. What garbage. Small keyboard, quirky 5.0 OS that never seems quite right, (exceptional battery life, however), and signal quality that somehow seems worse than the 9000. I bought it outright from AT&T on December 18, and by January 18 I was ready for something better. So I took the plunge, and bought the top-of-the line Nokia.

Nokia
Nokia, to me, is the hardware benchmark by which all other phones should be measured. The Cadillac of cellphones, if you will. Now I know that they make their money selling low-end dumbphones to emerging markets, and this is what finances their ability to provide me with the pinnacle of mobile devices known as the N900. But the other Nokia devices I have used, such as the N95, have always provided an excellent user experience and hardware quality that is unsurpassed. I figured that T-Mo is a global player, and they seem to be serious about contending in the USA, so their 3G can't be *too* bad, right? Why not buy an N900? Now I know why, which leads my to my real question:

Why does T-Mobile's network have to suck so badly?

I really, really, *really* want to like this company. AT&T's business practices leave a lot to be desired. They don't seem to care that their network is completely overloaded and taxed to hell anywhere there are more than 5 smartphones active on the site. Verizon is just evil, closed, and overrated. Sprint is Sprint. Regionals are OK, and I would probably support one if they weren't all CDMA in my area, as they seem to provide good service at a nice price.

So that leaves T-Mobile. GSM, national footprint, decent rates, pretty open, customer-friendly...but the god-awful 1700/2100 AWS 3G network just isn't going to cut it. I can't pick up my phone inside *any* building I have been in and not have it completely drop carrier. This wouldn't be a problem in most places, as I don't mind going outside to use my phone at bars, restaurants, coffee houses, in any personal social situation. But for business, I need my phone to work in buildings while I'm on the job. Every time, if possible.

I just don't understand it. Where I work, there are at least 15,000 different people coming and going every week. And you can always tell a T-Mobile user. They have that disgruntled look on their face as they search for the nearest window or glass-hallway to take a call or send a text. Because the minute you enter a building, you go from full service to no service. There are plenty of people who spend 10-15 hours a day at this site, and anyone who absolutely, positively needs their phone to work has AT&T, or (would you believe it!) Cricket. Now, I don't expect Verizon to give two-***** about their coverage, since they already have the mindshare and marketshare in their favor to be apathetic about it. There's no point in *****ing to Verizon about their network, beacuse *its THE network* (lol) And again, Sprint is Sprint.

But if Cricket can do it, why the hell can't T-Mo? You would think they would want better marketshare and mindset. FFS, the T-Mo 3G network uses the same AWS spectrum as Cricket in my area. And Cricket works damn fine in all the buildings at this site. And I'm not out in BFE, we're talking the 3rd largest market in the US, in the middle of a 100,000+ city, less than 15 miles from Chicago, Illinois. I have finally found the perfect device, and it sits there in all its glory, stone-stupid 95% of the time when I'm working 12 hour days. And goes dead by hour 10 since it spends all of its free time looking for a non-existant cell signal.

I really want T-Mobile to succeed. I really want to be able to recommend this company to other people that I know and work with. I am the person people come to for answers about their technology, and EM+ is revolutionary. It has the potential to change the industry. But it never will, as long as AT&T and Verizon have the coverage people want. I know that it's possible to have a high-band network that functions properly. See the ex-PacBell GSM1900 network in Cali. It can be done. I don't expect this post to change anything, as I have already decided that I might just use my AT&T SIM in the N900 and slum it with EDGE just to have service. And T-Mo will lose a subscriber.

But...why doesn't T-Mo make this thing work in the places that it needs to work in order to really compete? They really could become the #1 cellular carrier with their nationwide AWS license, if they just build it out right! If they build it, subscribers will come!!

Any thoughts?

[veryblackberry]

i dont have any problem indoors in chicago/suburbs. are you in a bunker?

[jeffro01]

Couldn't disagree with the OP more, in Wichita KS i don't have any issues with 3G at all. It even works in the basement of the building I work in. 2G is even better. Sorry it's not working out for you but.... No complaints here... Furthermore I have lived in many different markets and been all over the country and although i may have not been to your exact place. I haven't had a single issue both inside and outside...

Consider me a very happy customer. I have friends with Verizon, at&t, and my company has sprint for its mobile devices and I can't think of any area in my market where T-Mobile is inferior. Where i'm at sprint is the worst....

Take all of that FWIW...

Jeff

[Kies]

W-CDMA isn't the same as what CricKet uses, it shrinks with the number of users on a tower. So it's signal is weaker than the GSM signal.. also

less than 15 miles from Chicago, Illinois.

Where are you exactly? T-Mobile's 3G network buildout is far from completely over in many cities.. there are plenty of sites are still left at 2G, or places that need more towers to fill in 3G coverage gaps. The less network traffic the lesser chance of the nearest tower even having 3G, currently of course.

[clonehappy]

W-CDMA isn't the same as what CricKet uses, it shrinks with the number of users on a tower. So it's signal is weaker than the GSM signal.. also



Where are you exactly? T-Mobile's 3G network buildout is far from completely over in many cities.. there are plenty of sites are still left at 2G, or places that need more towers to fill in 3G coverage gaps. The less network traffic the lesser chance of the nearest tower even having 3G, currently of course.

Well, Cricket doesn't use WCDMA/HSPA, but they do use CDMA/EVDO, which also suffers from cell breathing, so I don't think that's the problem.

Hopefully what you said is true, that the 3G buildout isn't complete. I'm located on a college campus with a major interstate running right through it, so I believe that there should be plenty of network traffic to justify 3G on all sites in the area, but I could be wrong, as I'm not near the downtown area. At any rate, I'm going to stick it out with T-Mobile for now and see where things go.

In the meantime, at least when I'm at desk, I have found a sweet spot where I seem to get signal. While this isn't ideal, I like to keep my phone in my pocket, It'll have to do until reception improves or I find another solution.

I can use Wi-Fi for data, but missing calls and texts doesn't work for me. And for some odd reason, my personal yahoo account will only sync if I am using 3G data and not WiFi.

[Kies]

I'm in the edge of town in an upper middle class neighborhood and the tower that went live a few months ago isn't 3G, and the 4 towers closest to me aren't 3G. You don't get any 2G to fall back on? From what you said.. your location really doesn't sound like an area where T-Mobile is most focused on getting 3G to. If you don't have any 2G to fall back on then your 3G signal is just as strong as your 2G and there is a lack of coverage altogether.

[clonehappy]

I'm in the edge of town in an upper middle class neighborhood and the tower that went live a few months ago isn't 3G, and the 4 towers closest to me aren't 3G. You don't get any 2G to fall back on? From what you said.. your location really doesn't sound like an area where T-Mobile is most focused on getting 3G to. If you don't have any 2G to fall back on then your 3G signal is just as strong as your 2G and there is a lack of coverage altogether.

Actually, the 3G seems a little stronger than the 2G signal, depending on where I'm at in certain buildings.

It's just strange to see my phone have 5 bars sometimes, then I pick it up and it drops to none just from my hand being over the antenna. I suppose it's just something I'll have to learn to live with if I'm going to be a T-Mobile subscriber.

[Kies]

Well the N900 itself doesn't have great 2G reception, but great 3G reception.

If I put my hand over the antenna on my TP2 it does drop the signal quite a bit(and wants to switch over to EDGE), but it's located at the top of the phone and not the bottom so I rarely have my hand over it.. signal is just too weak though from what it seems. I have found one personal AWS repeater, because I don't have any 3G towers in the area (confirmed w/ a T-Mo rep cell map) but I'm not too anxious to get it myself.

[Scottish Skyedance]

I have found one personal AWS repeater, because I don't have any 3G towers in the area (confirmed w/ a T-Mo rep cell map) but I'm not too anxious to get it myself.

http://jdteck.com/jd55-pr-kit-std-co...its-p-692.html

I wish it has PCS+AWS and I'd buy it immediately.

[clonehappy]

Well the N900 itself doesn't have great 2G reception, but great 3G reception.

Actually, I have found that the 3G and 2G reception are pretty much on par with each other. It seems that the N900 really is a "real" Nokia as far as RF performance is concerned.

Additionally, I drove out to the Four Winds Casino in New Buffalo, Michigan this weekend, and was pleasantly surprised to find that I had 3G service until I got off of the freeway in Michigan. I was streaming online radio, and it didn't skip but one time until I got onto the local roads.

AT&T usually loses 3G about 20 miles back on I-94 where their 850MHz license runs out, and it doesn't appear that they have expanded 3G onto their newfound spectrum from the Centennial purchase yet. It's nice to see such serious expansion in T-Mobile's 3G network, so maybe there is hope yet!

[N900Fan]

Here is my experience with the N900 and T-Mobile 2G, 3G.

I live in an area defined as good for outdoor coverage by T-Mobile and 1.3 miles from the nearest T-Mobile antenna that is on a hilltop (tower base elevation app. 468 ft. + 181 ft. tower ht.). We live in a valley with an elevation of app. 400 ft. Our T-Mobile 2g and 3G outside the home coverage is usable and yields 1-2 bars (mostly 1) on both 2G and 3G when holding the device normally. If I hold the N900 with two hands on the edges above my head and aim it towards the tower, I can achieve 2-4 bars in certain spots outside my home.

Inside coverage above ground is not usable for both T-Mobile 2G and 3G. The N900 can pick up a bar and sometimes 2 with the device held normally in the hand, but it can just as quickly drop to zero (not good for calls). If I find a sweet spot in the home and set the N900 on its stand, it seems to achieve better 3G reception (2 bars) than 2G (0-1). Downstairs (below ground) in our home yields no coverage with any wireless carrier. So in conclusion, I think the 3G antenna is slightly superior to the 2G in the N900, but not in any practical kind of way for me.

That said, I have found that setting the N900 on a hard surface with screen side down (antenna up) and near a window in a hotel (for USB tethering) was much better than using the desk further inside the room for reception and download speed. So maybe using a hot spot application on the phone (or Bluetooth) to transmit to another device has some merit, assuming that you can plug the N900 in for the huge power drain that occurs with Wi-Fi and 3g.

I mostly utilize my Samsung T339 with UMA and have great call coverage inside and around my home with just one phone number and don't have to mess with call forwarding, or a land line, or Skype. Simple! The N900 gets relegated to new and improved PDA status and many travel uses.

[pakraider]

http://jdteck.com/jd55-pr-kit-std-co...its-p-692.html

I wish it has PCS+AWS and I'd buy it immediately.

look at the last option (K).

[adam917]

I'm in Philly & have noticed similar behaviour. Despite the city having 3G on T-Mobile for around 2 years now, the coverage has not improved compared to their 2G network. I for instance have no 3G signal in the subway stations where 2G was deployed last year, also there are a number of 3G dead zones that are fine on 2G. I often wonder if most buildings have repeaters in them for the older 850 & 1900 bands & since the AWS band is too new, maybe the lack of coverage is due to being able to pick up the signal from, at best, the nearest outdoor tower/site. Does anyone here know more about this sort of thing & if my hypothesis is true or if it's just that there are loads more 1900 MHz 2G sites than them newer AWS 3G sites?