 |
 | 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 / Providers / Verizon / June 2008Change in service quality.
I live in a mountainous area in northern California. Five years ago I switched to Verizon from ATt&T because the CDMA prodocol worked so much better in this area. I was also instrumental in many of my friends and associates (we're talking more than 100) signing onto or even switching to Verizon because of the better connectivity and over all service, and because of the no-minute-charge mobile-to-mobile service. Recently, within the last three to five months, Verizon service has changed noticeably even dramatically. So much so that some of my friends have changed providers. Symptoms of the change are: 1. wider dead zones 2. Often smaller bar connection in previous "hot" areas. 3. "hanging calls" i.e. you dial land the phone sits on timer. You have to hang up and call again, sometimes several times. While these may be common cell phone user experiences and complaints they are new to us in this region. And more importantly it represents a change. Some Verizon users report a return to better service and diminishment of these symptoms when they purchased higher end Verizon phones. Sprint and US Celluar users report NOT having these problems. So, far Verizon has been unable to provide a remedy or even an acceptable explanation. I'm posting here to inquire if this is a change experience beyond our regions. And, of course, if anyone can offer an explanation or solution. Thank you CR >I live in a mountainous area in northern California. >Five years ago I switched to Verizon from ATt&T [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >regions. >And, of course, if anyone can offer an explanation or solution. Are you absolutely certain you were previously getting digital signals all those times and not analog ones? The analog channels were shut down during the time period you referenced, which left a number of dead spots in rural/mountainous areas. >> I live in a mountainous area in northern California. >> Five years ago I switched to Verizon from ATt&T [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > down during the time period you referenced, which left a number of > dead spots in rural/mountainous areas. Was analog service actually shut down? I was under the impression that the providers were ALLOWED to shut down analog service but not REQUIRED to do so. >>> I live in a mountainous area in northern California. >>> Five years ago I switched to Verizon from ATt&T [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Was analog service actually shut down? For the most part, yes. >I was under the impression that >the providers were ALLOWED to shut down analog service but not REQUIRED >to do so. No, they weren't required to shut them down, but most carriers who had AMPS service were happy to pull the plug as soon as they could. VZW led the pack, as they could use the freed up channels for more digital capacity. On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, The Ghost of General Lee <gh...@general.lee> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:16:21 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert" > > >> Are you absolutely certain you were previously getting digital signals The analog issue is the first explanation I entertained, and it may well be the answer. However, the reported change comes from many users and most report digital only phones. I've obtained conflicting information regarding my phone (LG VX4500) whether it is dual mode or digitial only. Anyway, some users in this area report a "return" to original service quality by purchasing an upgrade phone such as the Razor or LG EnV > No, they weren't required to shut them down, but most carriers who had That's interesting. Verizon tech reps dump all the blame on the Feds. I wonder if the change of which I complain has something to do with this change and/or did Verizon change or add protocol. That is to say, years ago CDMA was reportedly the preferred protocol in a mountainous region and GSM (ATT) didn't work so well. Has Verizon made changes in this regard? Thanks for the reponses. > and/or did Verizon change or add protocol. I'm seeing in Verizon's FAQs that they have two protocols CDMA digital or PCS digital. I'm wondering if they have subordinated one to the other i.e. one has priority or more bandwidth or something? CR >> and/or did Verizon change or add protocol. > >I'm seeing in Verizon's FAQs that they have two protocols >CDMA digital or PCS digital. PCS isn't a protocol. It is the 1900Mhz band. CDMA can be used on both the 800Mhz and 1900Mhz bands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Communications_Service >I'm wondering if they have subordinated one to the other >i.e. one has priority or more bandwidth or something? It depends on the area. Most VZW areas are 800Mhz, while a few are 1900Mhz. The PRL tells the phone which one to use (which is almost always VZW's native system). >On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, The Ghost of General Lee <gh...@general.lee> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The analog issue is the first explanation I entertained, and it may >well be the answer. After a bit of research this morning, it seems the VX4500 is indeed a digital only phone. I could find no reference to analog capability on this model. >However, the reported change comes from many users and most report >digital only phones. >I've obtained conflicting information regarding my phone (LG VX4500) >whether it is dual mode or digitial only. Anyway, some users in this >area report a "return" to original service quality by purchasing an >upgrade phone such as the Razor or LG EnV Some phones are just more sensitive than others. >> No, they weren't required to shut them down, but most carriers who had > >That's interesting. Verizon tech reps dump all the blame on the Feds. Somehow, I'm not surprised. >I wonder if the change of which I complain has something to do with >this change >and/or did Verizon change or add protocol. That is to say, years ago >CDMA was reportedly the preferred protocol in a mountainous region and >GSM (ATT) didn't work so well. >Has Verizon made changes in this regard? Don't discount the fact that 800Mhz will generally carry further than 1900Mhz. And I trust you did the obligatory PRL update. Redigoogle used his keyboard to write : > On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, The Ghost of General Lee <gh...@general.lee> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Thanks for the reponses. The LG 4500 was reported to have been one of the poorest phones for reception. Check with users who have newer phones. These are very helpful responses. Richard, I appreciate the verification that the 4500 is digital and yes I've done the PRL, i.e. if *228 is the PRL > The LG 4500 was reported to have been one of the poorest phones for > reception. Check with users who have newer phones. Yes, some users with newer, higher end phones report better service. My experince when first obtaining the 4500 was that it obtained super reception. So, while the solution to our general problem here may be "get newer phones" I'm trying explore "why the change". As a group in this area, we experience a dramatic change. I would think that this almost certainly is because Verizon changed something. I'll check with Verizon regarding the 800 or 1900Mhz in our area. It would be useful to know the wattage of any particular phone. When I was with ATT the local rep was quite helpful and knowledgeable and recommended iirc a 1 watt phone. I think he said that was max allowable, while most phones were in the .6-.8 w range. I wonder if there is a data base on line somewhere with this sort of info. As I mentioned, recently a Verizon rep recommended I get a 3 watt attache phone. Thanks for all the help. I continue to get responses from my group of friends and the consensus grows regarding recent change of service quality. Of course, it is a bit of a subjective thing. The most compelling or should I say convicting evidence of a Verizon glitch is that Sprint and US Cellular users in the area report experiencing no change. Cliff Redigoogle <redicliff@yahoo.com> wrote in news:7a14cba0-beaf-436b- bf39-2ec453ec0d89@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com: > As I mentioned, recently a Verizon rep recommended I get a 3 watt > attache phone. There is no such phone. The digital bagphone monsters have the same exact phone board in them as the handheld V3. I bought one, discovered the lie and returned it the next day. > Redigoogle <redicl...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:7a14cba0-beaf-436b- > bf39-2ec453ec0...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > exact phone board in them as the handheld V3. I bought one, > discovered the lie and returned it the next day. How did you discover it? What is the wattage of a handheld V3? Thanks > What is the wattage of a handheld V3? Probably 0.6 watts like most phones...  SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > Probably 0.6 watts like most phones... We haven't had that much power luxury since the very first Motorola 725 CDMA/AMPS flipphones. Power level limits now are in the 120 to 180 mw range to much more inefficient antennas hidden inside the case to impress the kiddies. 600 mw would eat the tiny batteries in an hour.... > > Probably 0.6 watts like most phones... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 600 mw would eat the tiny batteries in an hour.... That's interesting. So, why (or how) do users of higher end Verizon phones reports better reception. There is certainly more than subjective difference. Three years ago, I noticed a difference between my vx4500 and whatever phone was down the scale VX3200 or something. Very informative thread. Thanks you. Cliff >>> Probably 0.6 watts like most phones... >> We haven't had that much power luxury since the very first Motorola [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Three years ago, I noticed a difference between my vx4500 and whatever > phone was down the scale VX3200 or something. I may be missing something but what does the transmit power of a cell phone have to do with the quality of reception on that cell phone? If I have more power, I may not need to be close to a tower to place a call but it's not going to affect my reception. Now if YOU call ME, and you have more power, I may get better reception or maybe not. I'm not listening to your signal directly, it has to be relayed through at least one tower. The sensitivity and selectivity of a receiver can make a big difference in the quality of the received speech. I suspect that the answer is that better phones have better receivers. On Jun 22, 9:35 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> wrote: what does the transmit power of a cell > phone have to do with the quality of reception on that cell phone? > > The sensitivity and selectivity of a receiver can make a big difference > in the quality of the received speech. I suspect that the answer is > that better phones have better receivers. I see your point, and realize that I'm confusing the two issues presuming that more power effected both directions of communication. Still power must be somewhat an issue in reception, since whatever signal is available must certainly be amplified to audible levels. Maybe its more a function of antenna size/quality? I don't know. Comments appreciated. > On Jun 22, 9:35 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I don't know. > Comments appreciated. A better antenna can make a huge difference. The sticking point is that many cell phones have no provision for an external antenna. The instruction book for my RAZR V3m does not mention the antenna at all. Whatever it has, it seems to be entirely internal. There are gadgets called "repeaters" that will increase your range. I've never seen one nor, knowingly, used one. Some are intended for use in vehicles, others are intended to be installed in, or on top of, buildings. > There are gadgets called "repeaters" that will increase your range. > I've never seen one nor, knowingly, used one. Some are intended for use > in vehicles, others are intended to be installed in, or on top of, > buildings. Next time you're in your local mall, you know, the one where the signal on your cell sucks, go to the Verizon COMPANY store, not the little resellers (not many have a repeater). As you approach the COMPANY store, keep an eye on your receiver's meter, the bars display. If, as you approach the Verizon store, you see your bars rise up peaking as you enter the store, look closely at the ceiling for a square white box that protrudes down from the ceiling for no apparent reason, usually over the cheap phones demo kiosk. That's the inside antenna of what I call, because it makes ANY phone work like there's a tower in the store, a "cheater repeater"....(c; The AMPS fun days are but a memory, now. What I used to do was to carry the 3W bagphone up near the store and make an AMPS call....completely blocking the cheater repeater's outbound receiver....(c; It made all the phones being demo'd look just awful...NO SERVICE... Redigoogle <redicliff@yahoo.com> wrote in news:f66fff45-11e4-4e7f-9553- 696aa8c478db@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com: > That's interesting. > So, why (or how) do users of higher end Verizon phones reports better > reception. > There is certainly more than subjective difference. > Three years ago, I noticed a difference between my vx4500 and whatever > phone was down the scale VX3200 or something. "Reception" infers the signal coming out of the tower and INTO your receiver. Towers have far more signal than Sellphones transmit. The receivers are custom ICs, now. The companies, including wonderful Verizon, are doing everything they can to expand the number of calls made per square mile in populated areas, where the money is. So, as you'll notice on the old AMPS towers, the antennas are way down near the ground, now, and mini cells have been erected with antennas only 100' high, instead of the old, powerful 500' tall AMPS towers that covered a 10 mile circle, and still do out on the boonies. To accomplish this increase in system load, they must reduce the footprint of each tower, use lots of towers, then drop the power of your handset so you don't light up too many of the low-profile, low powered towers at once. There's no reason to care about your own "range" or "reception". A lot of the "reception" difference is more PERCEPTION....unless it has an 800 Mhz pullup antenna you can extend to increase antenna efficiency next to your head. New phones have no antenna but a piece of wire on the circuit board....the best reason for the poor service from transmitter and receiver. I appreciate your technical knowledge, Larry. Very informative and helpful. > "Reception" infers the signal coming out of the tower and INTO your > receiver. By "good reception" I mean "easy to hear caller", "no warbelling or cutting out" usually means good "bars" indicated but not always, and quality of incoming call does not vary with elevation of phone, or indoors or outdoors. Anything less than all of those qualities all at once is, in my opinion and experience, something less than "good" reception. I don't experience "good reception" as a matter of "perception". It either is or it isn't. Whatever signal is available at any locations (and it certainly varies in strength judging from the number of bars shown) I presume that individual phone models vary in their ability to "amplify" the signal that is "received" through induction. Am I on the right track? By "good transmission" I mean, call connects right away and ringing begins, caller can hear me easily with no warbling or cutting out and transmission does not vary with elevation of phone or indoors or outdoors (assuming they are getting "good reception"). I understand that one cannot expect to get "good reception" or "good transmission" with any phone all the time or every where. To re-emphasize the original direction of this thread. Good reception and good transmission, for me and many of my Verizon user friends in our area changed in the last couple of months. Customers of the local competing provider that uses (or did) same protocol and as far as I know the same towers do not report this change although the complaining customer sample is small. I'm trying to determine what is different. >Towers have far more signal than Sellphones transmit. The > receivers are custom ICs, now. Could you elaborate on this. If what you mean is that Towers transmit more powerful signals than a cell phone transmits, well that's clear. What is an IC? Integrated Circuit? >you'll notice on the old AMPS towers, What is an AMPS tower? > There's no reason to care about your own "range" or "reception". Only in the terms above. > mini cells have been erected with antennas only 100' high, instead of the old, powerful 500' >tall AMPS towers that covered a 10 mile circle, and still do out on the boonies. 500 foot tower? I am in the boonies. There are some big towers on the mountain ridges. On the other hand, Verizon reports cell locations in two nearby "towns" and I don't think there is even a 100 foot tower in those areas. Could the change you suggest be a factor in the problem I'm reporting? Thank you Cliff Redigoogle <redicliff@yahoo.com> wrote in news:689f8e7d-25c9-4668-8b8a- 15a005d270ef@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com: > 500 foot tower? > I am in the boonies. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > areas. Could the change you suggest be a factor in the problem I'm > reporting? You're never going to have good sellphone service in the boonies. 1 - Verizon doesn't want to waste money on rural coverage when it's much more profitable in the cities. 2 - In mountains, you'd need a cell or at least a repeater every time you can't see the tower, directly, to overcome that nasty multipath problem they don't ever want you to talk about. 3 - We've turned down the phone's power so far and eliminated all the external antenna connections, making the antennas more and more inefficient to make the glitzy girls happy until, even in flat country, the phones won't radiate a signal bigger than the noise from the sun more than a mile or two. In the mountains, you're lucky if it works 2 miles from the tower, ESPECIALLY on 1900 Mhz....where propagation and attenuation is MUCH worse. (Notice how much better VHF TV signals on low frequencies work in the mountains than UHF TV signals with so many ghosts caused by multipath interference you can hardly make out the analog picture.) Out in the boonies, what you need is a MOUNTED, POWERFUL AMPS carphone with a high gain rooftop antenna (the old ones with the spring-looking phasing section). Those work in the boonies....to the big towers on the mountaintops. But, alas, they've all gone, in the name of city profits. Your only solution is to MOVE....(c; >We've turned down the phone's power so far and >eliminated all the external antenna connections, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >mountains, you're lucky if it works 2 miles from the >tower, ESPECIALLY on 1900 Mhz.... Wouldn't the shortness of an internal antenna better match the wavelength of the *1900* MHz band, giving it *better* reception than the 800? >>We've turned down the phone's power so far and >>eliminated all the external antenna connections, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > wavelength of the *1900* MHz band, giving it *better* reception than the > 800? This is true, though this is balanced by the fact that there's no space constraint at the tower so the tower's antennas will be better at 800 MHz even if the phone's antenna is better at 1900. And 800 MHz signals go around things better than 1900 MHz, while 1900 MHz signals generally reflect more, so at 1900 MHz the phone's performance will depend a lot more on being able to make constructive use of reflected signals, something which CDMA is supposed to be good at but which is a bit expensive in terms of processing and may be less than perfect. The end result may be that teeny tiny handsets with teeny tiny antennas end up being equally bad at either frequency. If you try to fix this, however, say by installing a car kit, 800 MHz will get better in a bigger hurry than 1900 MHz. Dennis Ferguson Cinderlane@webtv.net (Cinder Lane) wrote in news:4818-486029BE-429 @storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net: >>We've turned down the phone's power so far and >>eliminated all the external antenna connections, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > wavelength of the *1900* MHz band, giving it *better* reception than the > 800? No. Look where it is when you're using the phone! One side of it is against the big dummy load your head makes absorbing all that energy the greenies are constantly in panic about. The other side you have your hand wrapped around, another dummy load just not as thick. Human meat absorbs RF energy just as much as a hamburger in your microwave...turning microwaves into heat very nicely at 800 or 1900 Mhz.....and NOT radiating it into space, unattenuated! If the antenna were EXTENDED above the top of your head and kept VERTICALLY POLARIZED, not tilted back at a 45 degree angle like the phone is when you're talking into it against your ear, THAT would radiate MUCH, much better. http://www.iridium.com/products/product.php?linx=0001 This one has a big, fold up antenna you extend over your head for SATELLITE RANGE to the LEO birds. I bought it for $50 from a yacht owner when it went dark at the Iridium bankruptcy, complete with all the accessories, before the US Military saved the system. It's $1.50/min and there's a prepaid plan so you don't have a monthly fee. I had it online a couple of months while I was sailing offshore with friends. But the idea is this antenna is why it goes so far to the birds....hundreds of miles out of the atmosphere. I'm not sure how much power it runs when it transmits. Talk Time is 3.2 hours on a charge, MUCH longer than I have budget for...(c; > 2 - In mountains, you'd need a cell or at least a repeater every time you > can't see the tower, directly, to overcome that nasty multipath problem > they don't ever want you to talk about. How many times do we have to do the CDMA multipath dance? You've been corrected quite a few times now - yet you keep spewing BS. Remember RAKE receiver, etc, etc...? (For the newb - CDMA phones use a special receiver that actually uses multipath to augment reception - contrary to Larry's erroneous info.) Redigoogle <redicliff@yahoo.com> wrote in news:689f8e7d-25c9-4668-8b8a- 15a005d270ef@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com: > By "good reception" I mean "easy to hear caller", "no warbelling or > cutting out" usually means good "bars" indicated but not always, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reception. I don't experience "good reception" as a matter of > "perception". It either is or it isn't. I'm sorry but they've turned off that system to increase profits. It was called AMPS and used analog FM radio technology, the same technology as your car radio's clear, ungarbled music stations...(except rap). Digital cellphones are never going to sound great. The sample rates are only 8 or 11 Khz to increase the number of users they can jam on a single channel in whatever digital scheme the company uses. The lovers will piss on me for talking AMPS, but just listen to any music on hold on a digital phone and it sounds like someone pissing in a paint can. Music on hold on an AMPS phone sounded just like it does on your wired landline... The warbelling and cutting out are caused by the codec crashing on bad data as multipath interference caused by your UHF signal bounces off buildings and other metal objects, even that jet landing overhead, sending the error correction scheme of the technology into overrun. On the old AMPS phone, it sounded like the signal faded when the reflected signal cancelled the direct signal, you moved a few inches and the direct signal to reflected signal ratio improved. On digital, it just dies....dropping the call if it can't recover quickly. Digital was never a good thing in marginal conditions. Wait until those car TV viewers find out ATSC, their new digital TV scheme, DOESN'T support a moving vehicle. It locks the picture as soon as you start moving and it never comes back until you stop and it can resync the data....even right by the megawatt transmitter tower! > Redigoogle <redicliff@yahoo.com> wrote in news:689f8e7d-25c9-4668-8b8a- > 15a005d270ef@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > moving and it never comes back until you stop and it can resync the > data....even right by the megawatt transmitter tower! BZZZZT - wrong again - more Larry's multipath BS.... Redigoogle <redicliff@yahoo.com> wrote in news:689f8e7d-25c9-4668-8b8a- 15a005d270ef@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com: > Whatever signal is available at any locations (and it certainly varies > in strength judging from the number of bars shown) I presume that > individual phone models vary in their ability to "amplify" the signal > that is "received" through induction. Am I on the right track? As you move and see the bars changing, even though the phones are designed with a LOT of lag to keep you from seeing it, you are seeing the effects of multipath, signals coming from many directions to your phone. When the signals coming at you in different paths are in phase, the signal gets much stronger. When they are out of phase, they cancel each other. The direct signal is usually stronger so it doesn't cancel completely (unless there is no direct signal), so you see the bars go from full to 2 to 3 to full to 1 moving only a few feet SLOWLY. If you move fast, the bar meter, purposely, doesn't follow the fading. They don't want you to see too much, especially if the news is bad....(c; > Redigoogle <redicliff@yahoo.com> wrote in news:689f8e7d-25c9-4668-8b8a- > 15a005d270ef@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > doesn't follow the fading. They don't want you to see too much, especially > if the news is bad....(c; BZZZZT - wrong again - more Larry's multipath BS.... Please research RAKE receiver Hint: CDMA uses multipath to enhance a signal - the exact opposite of Larry's BS Redigoogle <redicliff@yahoo.com> wrote in news:689f8e7d-25c9-4668-8b8a- 15a005d270ef@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com: > What is an IC? Integrated Circuit? Yes. There are now customer integrated circuits that are whole radio transceivers....all in one chip with very few external parts, mostly filters so it only hears one channel at a time. It's how they cram a sellphone, Bluetooth, 700 Mhz digital TV receiver, GPS all into a tiny flat PDA with a 3" screen....integration. > I appreciate your technical knowledge, Larry. > Very informative and helpful. PLEASE....... I see you are new here. Larry's technical knowledge is actually quite good - with some limits. Mainly, he understands good old analog signals and conventional transmissions. But, it has been demonstrated repeatedly, he either doesn't understand digital, specifically CDMA, or chooses to spout BS, just to be contrary - or an a.s. Please take Larry's posts with a LARGE grain of salt. > > Probably 0.6 watts like most phones... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 600 mw would eat the tiny batteries in an hour.... That's interesting. So, why (or how) do users of higher end Verizon phones reports better reception. There is certainly more than subjective difference. Three years ago, I noticed a difference between my vx4500 and whatever phone was down the scale VX3200 or something. Very informative thread. Thanks you. Cliff Redigoogle <redicliff@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b949a81c-9847-4e7b- be73-b3c3b779f79a@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com: > How did you discover it? > What is the wattage of a handheld V3? > > Thanks I noticed how long the little battery lasted, compared to the daily charging routines of my bagphones. Then, I called a ham radio op I've known for 25 years who is a wheel at Motorola and asked him. Different carriers set different power limits in their system software depending on which mode and band you're using. But, the actual difference between 150 and 200 mw isn't significant. Double the power is only 3db....hard to measure in the noise. Max power is hardly ever transmitted. Multiuser systems, like Sellular, depend on relatively level signals at the receiver, so, the system adjusts your transmitter on the fly to level you with other users. On cell fringes, more urgent matters like multipath interference cause you to crash.... > I live in a mountainous area in northern California.... > Recently, within the last three to five months,Verizonservice has changed noticeably even dramatically. > So much so that some of my friends have changed providers. > ... Bingo. Dagnabbit. Anyone know specifically about this last weekend, June 18-21 -- was anything especially bad? I've been successfully using a Kyocera 6035 for years at a mountain field work site in N. Ca. -- always connected fine. All that time, people with newer phones without the pullout type antenna have often found they couldn't work cellular where we could. This trip, first of the summer, was different -- we have two identical phones, same behavior. The phone shows three bars for about ten seconds, then "searching" for about 30 seconds. Repeated same problem all four days we were on the site. I'd guessed what someone later in this thread describes -- Verizon must have quit using their tall tower that was line of sight for us and moved to smaller weaker cells, and we're beyond the fringe now. Anyone have a recommendation for a Verizon phone known good at their margin? What "higher end" pricier phones do work? Hoping to hear from someone who has experienced this loss of signal and succeeded in finding hardware to get connection back? Anyone have a recommendation for any cell phone model that will reliably take an external antenna? The old Kyocera would work with an external antenna ok, but the adapter was a pressure-fit onto a very flimsy little diagnostic port. Too easy to break right off the circuit board, I had to resolder mine several times and have kept going only by swapping parts, til now. If indeed there was a problem with no analog channels during this period -- what time span? Will it be restored? >> I live in a mountainous area in northern California.... >> Recently, within the last three to five months,Verizonservice has changed noticeably even dramatically. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > All that time, people with newer phones without the pullout type > antenna have often found they couldn't work cellular where we could. <snip> > If indeed there was a problem with no analog channels during this > period -- what time span? Will it be restored? Not sure where you are talking about exactly, but rural and mountain coverage for Verizon took a big hit when AMPS was shut down. Lots of places that used to have coverage now have no coverage. There was still AMPS in central California's gold country (Golden State Cellular) in March, and in far northern California and southern Oregon (U.S. Cellular) last week (my own experience). Someone reported Verizon AMPS out in Death Valley recently. In Silicon Valley, AMPS is completely gone, even though in the surrounding greenbelt there is often no digital at all, either GSM or CDMA. You're probably S.O.L. with Verizon if you need AMPS. Switch carriers, if there is one to switch to that's any better. > I live in a mountainous area in northern California. ... > Recently, within the last three to five months, > Verizon service has changed noticeably even dramatically. > So much so that some of my friends have changed providers. This could be to a change in roaming agreements; your phone may have been receiving service from a different carrier, even though it didn't show roam. Changing to a different phone might help, as would an external antenna, such as those made by Wilson Electronics. As far as different phones, both of my Motos do very well in fringe areas. Unfortunately, both have been discontinued, but still might be found on eBay. One is a 325i, the other an 815. The 815 easily has be best reception of any digital-only phone I've used. |
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.