AT&T using 1900 MHz, terrible in building coverage

[Wireless Junkie]

Wow, you have bad luck picking phones. Out of that list, unless the cheap GoPhone is an old Nokia candybar, you chose six phones that are not considered to have good reception. That's not to say that at&t doesn't need to do some work in your area. Obviously they do. After all, most phones have **** for reception. However, find one that does have good reception and you'll probably see significant improvement. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that few manufacturers care at all about reception beyond seeing that it works in a test chamber. This is because the carriers don't, either. They just want to give you a cheap phone so they spend less on subsidies.

Samsung is basically ****. LG is plain ****. Motorola had a big problem during the past decade, but their modern phones are reported to be good. Nokia is really the only one that consistently bothers, and even then they occasionally have duds in the reception department. If it doesn't work on a cheap candybar Nokia GoPhone, you can rest assured that the network is completely effed where you are.

The sad thing is that nobody is focusing on reception these days. They're too busy cramming quad core cpus, a bunch of ram, and ginormous screens in there to leave room for an antenna, I guess. Who can blame them after the iP4 idiocy turned out to be accepted by most consumers? The uproar came from a very small, but very vocal minority. Very frustrating to those of us who want a nice phone that can hold a call on long trips through rural areas.

Seriously..... Out of all those phone's, its NOT the handset if the issue remains the same. Its the network.

[wierdo]

Seriously..... Out of all those phone's, its NOT the handset if the issue remains the same. Its the network.

Either view is equally correct. The handset and the network work together to make the magic happen. Yes, the network could, and should, be improved. As with the handset.

[zephxiii]

Looking at the coverage map I can tell you the site density is not as high as it needs to be.

[zephxiii]

In two months, my iPhone 4 will be 2 years old.

It hasn't got any scratches on the screen, it's never been dropped and it hasn't cracked.

To say that you *need* a case is simply false.

It's incredibly stupid not to. Not everyone wants/needs an Otterbox like I'm getting soon, but it needs a decent case on it. There is a reason all the of early OG iPhones were spider-web cracked- there were no cases out at the time. Most people put cases on their iPhones, and for good reason, but many of the unprotected ones are spider-web cracked at a corner.

It didn't take long to scratch my iphone's screen without a screen protector.

That said the iPhone4 needs a case just to get decent reception. I have a very slim elago case that is super nice and makes the 4 nicer to hold than naked.

[Morphling27]

I live in Phoenix and I'm on straight talk with the ATT sim. We have only 1900 here as far as I'm aware and I get pretty good indoor coverage anywhere I go. The only times I have lower signal is in the middle of old buildings make from blocks as thick as a fridge.

At home, my office, offices I go to train, and friend's homes, I'm always sitting at 3 or more bars. Although I do have a moto phone which I think hold pretty good signal, compared to other phone makers.

[Wireless Junkie]

Either view is equally correct. The handset and the network work together to make the magic happen. Yes, the network could, and should, be improved. As with the handset.

While a handset may have a bit to do with signal at the very edge of the cell, if all those handsets are having significant issues then it is the network plain and simple. No other excuses.

Even AT&T does quality control checks on their handsets and they aren't going to release that many crappy handsets, especially with the Skyrocket being one of their most popular handsets. The Skyrocket actually gets better reception than a lot of their current phones.

[ilvla2]

While a handset may have a bit to do with signal at the very edge of the cell, if all those handsets are having significant issues then it is the network plain and simple. No other excuses.

Even AT&T does quality control checks on their handsets and they aren't going to release that many crappy handsets, especially with the Skyrocket being one of their most popular handsets. The Skyrocket actually gets better reception than a lot of their current phones.

I get good reception on my Galaxy Note i717 as well.

[zephxiii]

In two months, my iPhone 4 will be 2 years old.

It hasn't got any scratches on the screen, it's never been dropped and it hasn't cracked.

To say that you *need* a case is simply false.

I live in Phoenix and I'm on straight talk with the ATT sim. We have only 1900 here as far as I'm aware and I get pretty good indoor coverage anywhere I go. The only times I have lower signal is in the middle of old buildings make from blocks as thick as a fridge.

At home, my office, offices I go to train, and friend's homes, I'm always sitting at 3 or more bars. Although I do have a moto phone which I think hold pretty good signal, compared to other phone makers.

I have been in the Phoenix/Scottsdale and was pretty happy with their 1900mhz coverage as well...they have a pretty good site density there.

[GSMinCT]

While a handset may have a bit to do with signal at the very edge of the cell, if all those handsets are having significant issues then it is the network plain and simple. No other excuses.

Even AT&T does quality control checks on their handsets and they aren't going to release that many crappy handsets, especially with the Skyrocket being one of their most popular handsets. The Skyrocket actually gets better reception than a lot of their current phones.

They have a pattern of releasing crappy phones, both in RF, and in terms of overall build quality. The first 4 versions of the iPhone wasn't really their fault, but many other phones were, as they had direct control over those devices. What I still don't understand is why the $20 Nokia 2610 outperforms every $650 smartphone on the market at using marginal 850mhz GSM signals.

Another huge mistake that they made when they were rolling out 3G on PCS, and that they make again with AWS LTE and CLR UMTS is that they wouldn't allow you to shut 3G off on those devices, and they seemed intent on holding on to 3G until there were no bars left, instead of switching to the much better 850mhz GSM/EDGE network. You should always be allowed to choose what network you're using, and I find it appalling that even the iPhone 4s can't choose (unless it's JB'ed like mine). I have had several times where it chose the wrong network if I was near an EDGE tower, but there was a UMTS tower a few miles away. I'd rather have 5 bars of EDGE than none of UMTS any day!

[wierdo]

I have been in the Phoenix/Scottsdale and was pretty happy with their 1900mhz coverage as well...they have a pretty good site density there.

IIRC, ATTWS only had 1900MHz in that area, so they had to build it for PCS from the get go. ISTR VZW and Alltel were the AMPS licensees in most of AZ. I forget which VZW predecessor company served Phoenix, though. Usually the problems come in in areas where NIMBYs abound or where the network was originally built out for AMPS and later had PCS added on without a sufficient increase in site density.

That said, if the surroundings are reasonably flat, a suburban PCS cell can easily reach 3-4 miles and still have some indoor coverage. Outdoors, that distance can be much farther, but is obviously highly dependent on terrain. With an external antenna and amplifier, 10-15 miles is doable on PCS.

[Jon_Doh]

AT&T and T-Mobile use GSM technology whereas Sprint and Verizon use CDMA. The difference in building penetration is due to two factors. One, the fact that GSM doesn't penetrate buildings as well as CDMA. And second, antenna placement and design, which varies from phone to phone. Some phones like the HTC's put their antennas in the rear cover and have horrible reception. Motorola has a superior antenna that is based on their military devices and they generally get the best reception. The new iPhone 4S does very well too as it employs two separate antennas. But, the iPhone 4, 3G and 3GS all have reception problems.

The difference between the two phones could simply be due to the different antenna designs or it could be a GSM/CDMA thing.

[zephxiii]

IIRC, ATTWS only had 1900MHz in that area, so they had to build it for PCS from the get go. ISTR VZW and Alltel were the AMPS licensees in most of AZ. I forget which VZW predecessor company served Phoenix, though. Usually the problems come in in areas where NIMBYs abound or where the network was originally built out for AMPS and later had PCS added on without a sufficient increase in site density.

That said, if the surroundings are reasonably flat, a suburban PCS cell can easily reach 3-4 miles and still have some indoor coverage. Outdoors, that distance can be much farther, but is obviously highly dependent on terrain. With an external antenna and amplifier, 10-15 miles is doable on PCS.

Yea i've gotten like 12 miles before on PCS with GSM, CDMA, and UMTS. I once long ago did a comparison between USCC and AT&T driving into Ohio in which their last cell site was on the same tower in indiana shortly before the OH line, interesting they both died out in the same area.

[DRC72]

But, the iPhone 4, 3G and 3GS all have reception problems.

I have no receptions issues with my iPhone 4.......... In fact it works quite well in fringe signal areas. It's a hell of a lot better than the Pantech II that I own as well.

[Pabster]

AT&T and T-Mobile use GSM technology whereas Sprint and Verizon use CDMA. The difference in building penetration is due to two factors. One, the fact that GSM doesn't penetrate buildings as well as CDMA. And second, antenna placement and design, which varies from phone to phone. Some phones like the HTC's put their antennas in the rear cover and have horrible reception. Motorola has a superior antenna that is based on their military devices and they generally get the best reception. The new iPhone 4S does very well too as it employs two separate antennas. But, the iPhone 4, 3G and 3GS all have reception problems.

The difference between the two phones could simply be due to the different antenna designs or it could be a GSM/CDMA thing.

WRONG. This is the oldest myth in the book.

It has NOTHING to do with the air interface. It's all about FREQUENCY. Lower frequencies penetrate objects (read: buildings) better than higher frequencies. CDMA running on 1900 is no better than GSM on 1900. Same with 850.

Not trying to single you out, this myth is repeated fairly often here and on a lot of other forums/discussion boards.

[zephxiii]

I have no receptions issues with my iPhone 4.......... In fact it works quite well in fringe signal areas. It's a hell of a lot better than the Pantech II that I own as well.

yes my iPhone 4 is very good at RF....with a case on lol. Though it's harder to tell in comparison with the old days when we were 1900mhz only.

WRONG. This is the oldest myth in the book.

It has NOTHING to do with the air interface. It's all about FREQUENCY. Lower frequencies penetrate objects (read: buildings) better than higher frequencies. CDMA running on 1900 is no better than GSM on 1900. Same with 850.

Not trying to single you out, this myth is repeated fairly often here and on a lot of other forums/discussion boards.

Yep, all about frequency really.