I have a Treo 750 which is my primary phone and use ATT as my carrier. After adding a data plan to my service ATT offered me a free BlackJack. Who am I to say no to free toys. Anyway I have been running an A/B comparison of the two phones and find the BlackJack radio appears to have a far superior radio to that of the phone. This is based solely on the value of the graphical receiver signal. I work for a marine electronics company and use several pieces of test equipment to generate a minimum discernable signal level for checking receiver sensitivity but do not have anything that would work up in the cellular range.
Has anyone else made any comparisons between the Treo and other phones? If so what have the results been?
Is the Treo any better or worse than the rest?
Are there any mods or radio improvements for the Treo?
Related
Hello,
I wanted to know if anyone tried one of these, if they are any good or a waste of money???
http://cgi.ebay.com/12-5dB-External...obile-MDA_W0QQitemZ200006439524QQcmdZViewItem
I am looking to get one to try and use in the San Jose, CA area spec. Ft. Hunter Ligget Verizon has coverage but no T-Mobile, I think Cingular has coverage too.
Couple of comments.
First off, if Cingular has coverage and TMobile doesn't, then you should check to see if you can manually select a network. There is a registry hack to do this, I just can't remember exactly where it is.
Second, Verizon is CDMA, Tmobile is GSM. Therefore, just because Verizon has coverage, doesn't mean TMobile will have coverage.
Third, You should make sure the antenna you buy has the correct connector. Each manufacture has a different connector style, and my not be compatible.
I understand you to mean, if Verizon and Cingular have a signal, with an antenna, wouldn't I have one, too?
The answer is probably yes.
I have a Wilson antenna on my wizard and one for my aircard, as well. The difference ranges from "oh cool" in most areas to "amazing" in some areas.
The one you posted a link to has been pulled off the market, obviously, it's ineffective.
I highly recommend you buy a wilson (www.wilsonelectronics.com)
One warning: many military facilities use electronic jamming systems, while not intended to block cell signals-they do. But, if others have a signal, so should you...maybe. LOL
If AlfredTV had checked http://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/ he would have seen that there is NO coverage anywhere near Fort Hunter Ligget. T-mobile's closest towers provide a string of beads of coverage along Hwy 101.
I have purchased and occasionally use an antenna identical to the one he asked about... it works quite well, within reason. One must consider that there is about 3 dB signal loss in the long coax that comes attached to the antenna. The principal advantage to using an external mag mount antenna is to avoid the roughly 11 dB in-vehicle reception loss and gain a better field of view for the antenna producing more reliable reception. It works but don't expect a miracle.
I mainly use the antenna slapped on the top of an upper cabinet in my cubicle. My phone alone at desk level is completely deaf, with the elevated antenna I can receive calls and make a (slow) EDGE connection.
Is Rev. A capable of upgrading to Rev. B Through another radio update?
Forgive me if its such a simple question, I'm somewhat time constrained at the moment, and just wanted to ask.
Rev. B looks awfully cool. But it does seem it well require new hardware, as how Rev. B Works is somewhat different.
As quoted from QUALCOMM
"LAS VEGAS, April 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- QUALCOMM Incorporated (Nasdaq: QCOM - News), a leading developer and innovator of Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and other advanced wireless technologies, today unveiled more of the Company's strategy for driving CDMA2000� 1xEV-DO Revision B to market. Still on schedule for commercialization in 2007, QUALCOMM's chipset solutions for the EVDO Rev. B standard will support unsurpassed wireless data rates to provide the springboard for delivering next-generation wireless data, music, gaming and multimedia entertainment devices.
"Consumers want devices that are smaller, lighter, faster, cheaper, as well as fully featured and with longer battery life," said Dr. Sanjay K. Jha, president of QUALCOMM CDMA Technologies. "We are committed to enabling our customers to meet these market demands, rapidly moving forward in the evolution of CDMA2000 technology to bring unprecedented levels of data throughput and network capacity with EV-DO Rev. B - capabilities that are necessary to support tomorrow's high-performance wireless applications."
Mobile Station Modem(TM) (MSM(TM)) solutions for EVDO Rev B will be highly integrated with advanced functionality, support the operation of up to three simultaneous channels of 1.25 MHz each for higher-speed data rates and deliver significant space-savings for devices that are thinner, smaller and lighter. The EVDO Rev. B standard supports up to 4.9 Mbps in each channel for a combined three-channel data speed of up to 14.7 Mbps on the downlink. With the processing power necessary for true multi-tasking capabilities that support the convergence of multiple consumer electronics features, and the ability to leverage the wireless bandwidth required to deliver these mobile services, QUALCOMM's chipsets for EV-DO Rev. B will deliver advanced functionality in a single compact, fully optimized device. QUALCOMM expects the first commercial EV-DO Rev B products to be data modems available in late 2007, with additional wireless devices available soon thereafter.
EV-DO Rev. B. technology is part of the Company's DO Multicarrier Multilink eXtensions (DMMX(TM)) platform, a set of technology and product innovations announced in November 2005. Enabling applications such as mobile TV or streaming music with a concurrent voice call, or conducting a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) conversation while simultaneously browsing the Internet or transmitting multimedia content over the network, the flexibility of EV-DO Rev. B technology also enables significant network capacity and performance enhancements while leveraging existing network investments and currently deployed devices. Extremely high-performance devices could support forward-link data rates of up to 73.5 Mbps, while lower-cost or pre-existing devices could support 4.9 Mbps. Network operators may reduce their costs by allowing a greater percentage of spectrum to be allocated to IP-based services. The DMMX platform also includes numerous QUALCOMM-developed techniques to further enhance the voice and data performance of EVDO networks."
Very doubtful.
I also have a feeling that any of the handsets out on the market today wouldnt even be powerful enough, processor-wise to take advantage of the faster speeds. You might be able DL something pretty quick, but the phone probably wouldnt be able to keep up in terms of rendering on screen images or web pages.
From this:
Extremely high-performance devices could support forward-link data rates of up to 73.5 Mbps, while lower-cost or pre-existing devices could support 4.9 Mbps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would interpret that to mean current Rev.A modems.
Are any carriers even planning on rolling out a Rev B network? Sprint is going WiMax, Verizon is going LTE. It may be a moot point.
bedoig said:
Are any carriers even planning on rolling out a Rev B network? Sprint is going WiMax, Verizon is going LTE. It may be a moot point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was under the impression that sprint was still in the process of deciding between Rev. B & WiMax.
bedoig said:
Are any carriers even planning on rolling out a Rev B network? Sprint is going WiMax, Verizon is going LTE. It may be a moot point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually Sprint has formerly abandoned WiMax efforts with Clearwire. Too many problems getting certain aspects of the project working. Spirent which was the supplier of test equipment to Sprint and Nortel for testing WiMax had many issues getting there equipment working properly. I doubt WiMax will ever really take off in the way it was meant too. It is true that some WiMax deployment exists, but it's proprietary and sparse. Sprint is still considering WiMax networks but Rev B would probally be an easier route for them to accomplish as not much changes to the antennae
http://www.news.com/Can-WiMax-make-it-in-the-U.S./2100-1039_3-6217947.html?tag=topicIndex
You have to realize that Rev B (if it happens) is YEARS away from being implemented. I mean, Rev A isnt even fully out for Verizon yet in all markets, and only through hacks can pda phones even use it currently, otherwise its restricted to PC aircards.
All the existing phones out on the market today will long be obsolete by the time the next generation of internet speed (whether its Rev B or whatever it might end up being) is deployed.
rajuabju said:
Very doubtful.
I also have a feeling that any of the handsets out on the market today wouldnt even be powerful enough, processor-wise to take advantage of the faster speeds. You might be able DL something pretty quick, but the phone probably wouldnt be able to keep up in terms of rendering on screen images or web pages.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesn't stop some people to just have it tethered to there PC's were it could be taken advantage of. (id be one of those people) lol
With the lack of a real free market here in the USA and the mass of land we have to cover all of these new techs will continue to be implimented in a horribly ****ty manor and in horrible ****ty time frame. The Federal gov keeps regulating the piss out of wireless and getting in the way.
stevenewjersey said:
With the lack of a real free market here in the USA and the mass of land we have to cover all of these new techs will continue to be implemented in a horribly ****ty manor and in horrible ****ty time frame. The Federal gov keeps regulating the piss out of wireless and getting in the way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sigh... so very true. Its no wonder japan has Everything, People there are already watching there high quality movies on there phones. There country is only SMALLER than the state of California. Insane? yes very.
Well this announcement is about a new chipset which would preclude you from just updating the radio.
and by the time the carriers implement REV B you will have had 3 new phones and more likely to have citywide WiFi if Google has it's way!
Can anyone compare GSM radio performance on the Rose to the Raphael (Touch Pro), or diamond?
I am having real trouble with poor GSM signal on my Touch Pro, and am considering switching to Rose - if it is better. I think Rose shares a lot of the hardware with the Touch Pro/Diamond, so I suspect radio performance will be similar.
TIA
mike-b said:
Can anyone compare GSM radio performance on the Rose to the Raphael (Touch Pro), or diamond?
I am having real trouble with poor GSM signal on my Touch Pro, and am considering switching to Rose - if it is better. I think Rose shares a lot of the hardware with the Touch Pro/Diamond, so I suspect radio performance will be similar.
TIA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RF always depends alot on where your at. I have both the S740 and the pro and find both have outstanding RF. I have no issues with either. I'm in Arizona and use t-mobile. T-mobile is big on coverage in AZ tho. I never have probs. with any of my devices here. I think you will see no better RF perf. with one over the other.
cbreze said:
RF always depends alot on where your at. I have both the S740 and the pro and find both have outstanding RF. I have no issues with either. I'm in Arizona and use t-mobile. T-mobile is big on coverage in AZ tho. I never have probs. with any of my devices here. I think you will see no better RF perf. with one over the other.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh well. Unfortunately, where I live and work, network coverage is pretty poor. And in this situation I know that my S710 (vox) totally outshines my touchpro for reception. I was hoping the S740 radio performance would be more like the S710 than the touch pro.
By the way, I am on GSM 900, and I guess you will be GSM 1900, so you are likely to have more densely arranged cells - the nearest base station to my house is over 1.5 miles with a large hill in between. The fact that I get any signal at all is quite impressive I suppose.
I had a S710 before - my new Rose has even a better reception (Germany, T-Mobile) ...
Have to admit, from going from a Tytn II to the S740 my signal quality has dropped by at least a half for indoor coverage (from full on the Tytn to 2 on the S740) but no difference in outdoor quality.
This question popped to mind after reading about people buying a Canadian Vibrant and not being able to use it on T-Mobile.
If car radios etc can tune their antenna's to a certain frequency to make them work. Why is it with cell phones that the antenna/radio can't bet set to do the same thing?
Is it a physical hardware limitation?
Thanks!
Each carrier purchases bandwidth in a specific part of the electro-magnetic spectrum (TMO receives/broadcasts in a different place than say Sprint). Phone OEMs produce receiver/transmitters that can support whatever the carrier requests.
There is no financially viable reason (that I can see) for TMO to request a phone that would also work on Verizon.
Pretty awesome, if true:
http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-note-7-4x4-mimo-709040/
Sent from my SM-N920V using XDA-Developers mobile app
Just came here to open a thread about this. What I don't get is all the news sources say that it's found only in the Snapdragon variant but if you look at Samsung's spec sheet for the global variant it also includes MIMO.
Look here under connectivity: http://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/galaxy-note7/
Ah I see that my reddit post is reaching the larger audience! Check out the original post for a lot more info and ELI5: https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/4wtsdy/galaxy_note_7_the_first_4x4_mimo_capable/
But I will also try to explain the benefits here.
- Up until now, all LTE smartphones had 2 Receive antennas in order to match the amount of Transmit antennas at the cell site, which sends up to two independent "spatial streams" in each transmission. In other words, when your signal is good, your phone is able to receive and demodulate both of those streams which provides faster download speeds.
- Over the past several years, T-Mobile begun equipping their LTE cell sites with 4 Transmit (and receive) antennas, which added additional diversity. Think of it as an additional set of "ears" at the cell site, able to "hear" your phone better since our phones transmit power is many times lower than Tx power at the cell site.
- Even though T-Mobile still sends out two spatial streams from the cell site, additional diversity allows operators to transmit data more efficiently, and essentially prepared operators like T-Mobile for the next step, 4x4 MIMO. This also helps with things like VoLTE, as the added antenna diversity improves overall signal resilience.
- In the meantime, there's been an ongoing struggle for OEMs to figure out how to implement 4 LTE Receive antennas in such a small smartphone form factor, and achieve acceptable antenna separation and isolation, and mitigate the interference. At the same time, in order to achieve the highest efficiency gain, signals that are coming into such a small device have to be uncorrelated, leveraging fading and multipath. I won't dive into that today.
- So adding 4 Receive antennas in the smartphone, just like T-Mobile has done at the cell sites, Samsung is effectively adding a set of "ears" and creating that same diversity on the user's end, which benefits not only users, but also operators as they're now delivering data more efficiently, especially to devices that happened to be in poor signal conditions.
- The best part happens when both the operator has 4 Transmit and the smartphone has the matching 4 Receive antennas. When that happens an operator can roll out 4x4 MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) LTE feature, which effectively doubles download speeds, assuming good signal conditions, on top of improved resiliency when in sub-optimal signal conditions.
- So in T-Mobile's or Verizon's case, they typically have 20MHz Band 4 spectrum deployed for their LTE. In the existing 2x2 MIMO use case that yields up to 150Mbps peak downlink data rates, in good signal conditions.
But once they activate 4x4 MIMO, speeds double up to 300Mbps out of the same 20MHz Band spectrum, without operators deploying additional spectrum resources.
- Even in less the optimal signal conditions, in places where you'd see 5Mbps speeds, we should be able to see improved speeds because our phones now have more antennas and are able to maintain that connectivity with the cell site.
It's easy to see that we end up winning on multiple levels now that 4Rx antenna implementation in a smartphone became a reality. I plan on reviewing LTE Performance in Note 7 and other smartphones on my site http://cellularinsights.com so keep an eye on it if interested in this kind of tuff.
What does this mean for sprint users?
milan03, Snapdragon 820 LTE modem is known to support 4x4 MIMO and kudos for Samsung implementing 4 receive antennas in Note7 if it turns out to be true.
But what about the samsungs own integrated modem in Exynos 8890? I have not seen any specs about 4x4 Mimo support about it. International S7/S7 edge already include that modem. So has the existing samsung modem support for 4x4 or has has samsung upgraded their modem in Note7?
iFixit teardown https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Samsung+Galaxy+Note7+Teardown/66389