TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Cell Phone Reception

Re: Cell Phone Reception
Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:31:23 -0500

Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:

> In article <>,
> says:

>> I have been having problems with my cell phone (LG) dropping calls in
>> my home. Seems like you talk for a few minutes and the call is
>> dropped. Getting tired of this and thinking it was my phone, I went
>> to Verizon since I was near the end of my contract and got 2 new LG
>> 6100 camera phones (one for me and one for my son). I paid over $200
>> -- there is a rebate.

>> Well don't you know it the same thing happens with this phone. I did
>> some testing and find that the signal bars are very weak in my area
>> (suburban), its not just my house ( a regular wood house) but
>> seemingly a few miles area the signal is weak. I drove about a mile
>> east and the signal bars got stronger and then they got the strongest
>> a few miles a way. The phone worked fine there.

>> So does this mean my area is in a dead zone?

>> What can be done? How can Verizon put someone in a contract if it
>> knows that cell reception will be poor in there area? Why doesn't
>> Verizon fix this so we all could get uniform service. It seems a rip
>> off if I can't use my cell phone in my home.

> If you want uniform service, you'll have to allow cell towers in your
> neighborhood. Everyone wants cell service, but NIMBY ...

> --Gene

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On my personal cell phone, which is on
> Cingular Wireless, my latest contract is about to run out, and when
> I was downtown Friday, I went in the Cingular Wireless store and
> talked to the lady about getting a new phone in exchange for renewing
> my contract. There were several hangups, IMO: the newer phones are
> a bit smaller and (a) they would not work with my existing Cell Socket
> device; I use a Nokia 5165, which is an older phone, but it works
> quite well (and, it also works quite well when tied into my PBXtra
> through the Cell Socket) ... (b) the picture quality on the newer
> phones, while it has gotten better, _still_ has a way to go before the
> picture quality is as good as an inexpensive digital PC camera, and
> (c) the lady told me unlike Cingular Wireless text messages, to send
> a picture costs more money, around 40 cents per transmission. If there
> was a way to avoid that transmission charge (for example by somehow
> transferring the picture directly to my computer, then using my own
> email to move the picture around, I might be inclined to get a new
> phone and try it. PAT]


How many pictures do you take?

Since I use a phone for talking first a little math showed me that
buying a hookup would not be economical for me.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ditto here; mainly I have a cell phone
to catch incoming calls (landline forwards on busy or no answer to
cell phone) and to call Jeff (the cab driver) to come fetch me to go
back home if I am out. I was sitting at Uncle Jack's (local restaurant
and watering hole) the other day when a young guy came in with a newer
style camera/picture phone. He showed me how it worked and emailed me
a picture of myself. I'm afraid my eyes and interests were bigger than
my budget once again. It really would not be economical for me either,
and only serve to raise my monthly bill a few dollars. PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Justin Time: "Re: Cell Phone Reception"
Go to Previous message: Thomas A. Horsley: "Re: Cell Phone Reception"
May be in reply to: "Cell Phone Reception"
Next in thread: Justin Time: "Re: Cell Phone Reception"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page