 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / Australian Group / July 20063G phone with good reception?
So, is it just my bad luck or are there no UMTS phones with _excellent_ reception yet? I've now had the chance to test out a Sony Ericsson K600i and a Nokia 6233, both tri-mode GSM and 2100MHz UMTS. Neither of them stack up against my trusty old SE K700i for reception quality. So, the test scenario included three Telstra USIMs and three Optus USIMs, two separate locations, both handsets locked to "GSM only" mode (ie, don't log onto a UMTS network), signal reading taken via Bluetooth to a computer. In all cases, the K600i and 6223 were between 18 and 30dBm worse-off than the K700i. No matter what I did, I couldn't get them to equal the K700i's reception on the same network. A simple "what does the handset's dinky signal meter say" test agreed with them. So, poor GSM radio in them because you should be using UMTS when-ever possible? Maybe, but I don't often see a full-strength UMTS signal on either network either. PD  SignaturePaul Day Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/ 2100MHz has much greater propagation loss, the phone rx has a poorer signal to noise ratio (Eb/No) Until the network providers increase the power and number of base stations and piss everyone off who is concerned about electrosmog and environmental issues then 3G will suck, maybe for ever. : So, is it just my bad luck or are there no UMTS phones with _excellent_ : reception yet? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] : : PD > 2100MHz has much greater propagation loss, the phone rx has a poorer > signal to noise ratio (Eb/No) > > Until the network providers increase the power and number of base > stations and piss everyone off who is concerned about electrosmog and > environmental issues then 3G will suck, maybe for ever. Read the post again. I was comparing 900/1800MHz GSM performance between the handsets. :) PD SignaturePaul Day Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/ Do you expect Telstra's 850MHz UMTS implementation to be any better?. That's what 'Sol' + buddies are hoping for ... > 2100MHz has much greater propagation loss, the phone rx has a poorer > signal to noise ratio (Eb/No) [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > : > : PD Paul Day, Do you expect Telstra's 850MHz UMTS implementation to be any better?. > Do you expect Telstra's 850MHz UMTS implementation to be any better?. > That's what 'Sol' + buddies are hoping for ... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> : >> : PD > Paul Day, > Do you expect Telstra's 850MHz UMTS implementation to be any better?. Yes. 850MHz will propagate further than 2100MHz and Sol's buddies are putting effort into the deployment because they _need_ it to meet CDMA's footprint. PD SignaturePaul Day Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/ >> Paul Day, >> Do you expect Telstra's 850MHz UMTS implementation to be any better?. > > Yes. 850MHz will propagate further than 2100MHz and Sol's buddies are > putting effort into the deployment because they _need_ it to meet CDMA's > footprint. no they don't. so what if it does not meet cdma footprint. no legal way they can be forced to provide it, apart from a bullshit promise that was given to coonan. > PD SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > Yes. 850MHz will propagate further than 2100MHz and Sol's buddies > > are putting effort into the deployment because they _need_ it to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > way they can be forced to provide it, apart from a bullshit promise > that was given to coonan. Yes, sorry - you're dead right. They've _promised_ it will meet CDMA's footprint. But the Senate Estimates transcripts show there is _nothing_ mroe than a promise. The government enquired about putting it in a contract, Telstra said "Why do we need a contract? We've made a promise!" and not much more has happenned that I've seen. I can't see much reason why they'd save a few bucks by decommissioning a CDMA site completely rather than re-using it for UMTS, but wether the single 850MHz UMTS cell has the same sized foot-print of the original 850MHz CDMA cell is open to debate... PD SignaturePaul Day Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/ "but wether the single 850MHz UMTS cell has the same sized foot-print of the original 850MHz CDMA cell is open to debate..." As the saying says ... Time will tell >> > Yes. 850MHz will propagate further than 2100MHz and Sol's buddies >> > are putting effort into the deployment because they _need_ it to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > PD > So, poor GSM radio in them because you should be using UMTS when-ever > possible? Maybe, but I don't often see a full-strength UMTS signal on > either network either. Don't forget UMTS is just WCDMA - and like vanilla CDMA the signal indicator is indicative only - I've made calls on my UMTS handset (clear ones at that) with 0 bars showing. Don't rely on it like GSM :) > > So, poor GSM radio in them because you should be using UMTS when-ever > > possible? Maybe, but I don't often see a full-strength UMTS signal on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > indicator is indicative only - I've made calls on my UMTS handset (clear > ones at that) with 0 bars showing. Don't rely on it like GSM :) Ah, very true. I've done similar with my CDMA handset over the years. However, I did use the SE k600i as my primary phone for a week (on Telstra/3 UMTS) and noticed reception quality over-all (ie, quality of the audio, ability to hear) wasn't as flash as my k700i on GSM. Is that the handset's poor reception or 3's UMTS network not being as extensive as Telstra's GSM? PD SignaturePaul Day Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/ > > So, poor GSM radio in them because you should be using UMTS when-ever > > possible? Maybe, but I don't often see a full-strength UMTS signal on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > indicator is indicative only - I've made calls on my UMTS handset (clear > ones at that) with 0 bars showing. Don't rely on it like GSM :) Strike 2, He was using the phone in 2G mode That's an interesting test Paul and you are right- it is strange to be seeing difference in singal level of 18 to 30 dB. A couple of questions- what software were you using on the PC to read the signal strength? Are you also able to see the GSM channel number you are on? (what I'm getting at is that you should be certain that when comparing the phones performance- you should be certain they are all on the same channel.) Also- were the difference similar for the two different operators - or just one? Fred > A couple of questions- what software were you using on the PC It was done using a program called BluePhoneElite under Mac OS X. It's a Bluetooth mobile utility with modular mobile configuration so the program knows how to query each model for SMSs, signal strength, converting signal strength to dBm etc. I would assume each handset's "signal strength" is actually register storing it as a value out of 255. There _could_ be some error in the conversion by the program of that register to a true dBm reading (out of -110 for GSM I think it is?), but I wouldn't have thought _two_ handsets of different manufacturer's would have the same conversion error. Especially seeing you could easily check your calibration against Nokia's own calibration by enabling NetMonitor. I'll enable NetMonitor on the phone later and confirm that is in fact the case. > to read the signal strength? Are you also able to see the GSM channel > number you are on? (what I'm getting at is that you should be certain > that when comparing the phones performance- you should be certain they > are all on the same channel.) Yes, very true. I can't pull the cell number out of the Sony Ericsson's, but obviously can from the Nokias. Might grab a "known good reception" Nokia GSM phone to throw into the mix to confirm at least it and the 6233 are on the same cell. The _Cell ID_ always matched, but that's obviously not gospel. I also did plenty of readings after leaving the phones sitting idle for a while rather than just a single once-off reading. One of the test locations is also in a depression and both Optus and Telstra have equipment close to the site (according to the ACA), so my _assumption_ would be that they were always on the same cell. > Also- were the difference similar for the two different operators - or > just one? No, the difference was the same with both operators. I even swapped the same operator's SIM cards between handsdets for good luck. With both Telstra GSM and Optus GSM, the k600i and 6233 were consistently worse-off than the k700i. I never once saw the k600i or the 6233 equal the k700i's signal reading during testing - both by pulling the dBm reading from the handset and by comparing the dinky little signal-strength meter on the handsets. PD SignaturePaul Day Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/ I've had a look at the BluePhoneElite website - but their FAQ isn't much help (technically)- and I'm not a Mac user so I can't test it. Doing the comparison between BluePhoneElite and Nokia's NetMon would be a good test for the Nokia at least. I'm at a loss- because a difference in signal strength of 18 to 30 dB is not expected even for different mobiles in the same location. My only guess is that the software is not pulling out the figures correctly from the mobiles. I'll have a think about it for a while longer and get back to you.... Fred > > A couple of questions- what software were you using on the PC > > It was done using a program called BluePhoneElite under Mac OS X. It's a > Bluetooth mobile utility with modular mobile configuration so the > program knows how to query each model for SMSs, signal strength, > converting signal strength to dBm etc. I would like to run this same test using some LG UMTS phones to find out how they compare for signal quality to a Nokia 2G. But I don't have a Mac. Can anyone suggest some software for the PC that does this? Preferably free software ;) Cheers, Jason > I would like to run this same test using some LG UMTS phones > to find out how they compare for signal quality to a Nokia 2G. > But I don't have a Mac. > > Can anyone suggest some software for the PC that does this? > Preferably free software ;) You could fire up a Hyperterminal session and use the standard cellular signal quality query command AT+CSQ interactively. You'll get a result like "+CSQ: 19,99". The figure to the left of the comma is RSSI (signal strength). To convert it to dBm, double it and subtract 113 from it. So in this example, I'm seeing -75 dBm ((19 * 2) - 113). You can download a copy of 3GPP technical specification 27.007 and use further netmonitoring-type commands like "AT+CREG" (check syntax variations) to read off the location area code and serving cell ID number. John > I would like to run this same test using some LG UMTS phones to find > out how they compare for signal quality to a Nokia 2G. But I don't > have a Mac. Or a brain, for that matter. > Can anyone suggest some software for the PC that does this? Preferably > free software ;) Just save your lunch money from school, kiddo. :-) > That's an interesting test Paul and you are right- it is strange to be > seeing difference in singal level of 18 to 30 dB. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Fred It's possible he was looking at C1/C2 values, which are on a logarithmic scale and derived from RLA but also depend on BCCH parameters which can vary from cell to cell (particular GSM900 vs GSM1800). > > That's an interesting test Paul and you are right- it is strange to be > > seeing difference in singal level of 18 to 30 dB. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > scale and derived from RLA but also depend on BCCH parameters which can vary > from cell to cell (particular GSM900 vs GSM1800). The two devices are probably on different BTSs. 30dB is a masssive difference - no way there could be that much difference in sensitivity. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.