Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Who do you complain to?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
June 8, 2004 4:04:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I've been with VZ for 5 years and three phones.

I've always gotten passable signal strength in one part of my house and
good reception in the other part.

I just signed a new 2 year contract about 3 months ago.

Suddenly, in the past few weeks signal strength deteriorated so that I
can no longer receive calls in one part of the house and people are
complaining my signal is breaking up almost no matter where I am.

VZ swapped out my phone, moved my address book over etc., but the signal
strength is exactly the same - inadequate, where it has been adequate
for 5 years. I've put in two trouble tickets - the problem continues.

If I sign a new contract and then my service seriously deteriorates and
I have a two year contract, is there anything I can do?

Louise

More about : complain

June 8, 2004 12:08:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:04:05 -0400, Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:

>VZ swapped out my phone, moved my address book over etc., but the signal
>strength is exactly the same - inadequate, where it has been adequate
>for 5 years. I've put in two trouble tickets - the problem continues.

I'm curious - same phone?

I wonder if they'd let you "try out" a new phone. The Nokia 3589i
supposedly has the best RF performance of any VZW phone, and even if
they're having local service issues...maybe it'd help your signal
inside the house over what it normally would be.

Other than that...I'd suggest persistence.

Mike
June 8, 2004 12:33:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Louise" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b2f04c017eaf14b9896fc@news.newsguy.com...
> I've been with VZ for 5 years and three phones.
>
> I've always gotten passable signal strength in one part of my house and
> good reception in the other part.
>
> I just signed a new 2 year contract about 3 months ago.
>
> Suddenly, in the past few weeks signal strength deteriorated so that I
> can no longer receive calls in one part of the house and people are
> complaining my signal is breaking up almost no matter where I am.
>
> VZ swapped out my phone, moved my address book over etc., but the signal
> strength is exactly the same - inadequate, where it has been adequate
> for 5 years. I've put in two trouble tickets - the problem continues.
>
> If I sign a new contract and then my service seriously deteriorates and
> I have a two year contract, is there anything I can do?
>
> Louise

One way to complain is to send a letter. Go to vzw.com and after you enter
your ZIP look for "contact us". It will show an address for the regional
office.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 2:12:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I have a 3589i and it is significantly better then old audiovox phone I had.

one other consideration would be that they have cell site down for maint or
upgrade
and when that site returns to service, your service will improve. Might be
worth
asking Verizon tech support.


"Mike" <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7glbc0lv32r2c0lolnfmaduf51m02pvsvq@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:04:05 -0400, Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >VZ swapped out my phone, moved my address book over etc., but the signal
> >strength is exactly the same - inadequate, where it has been adequate
> >for 5 years. I've put in two trouble tickets - the problem continues.
>
> I'm curious - same phone?
>
> I wonder if they'd let you "try out" a new phone. The Nokia 3589i
> supposedly has the best RF performance of any VZW phone, and even if
> they're having local service issues...maybe it'd help your signal
> inside the house over what it normally would be.
>
> Other than that...I'd suggest persistence.
>
> Mike
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 4:28:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Demand them to put a cell site in your yard!

Me me me

Thats whats its all about


'
"Louise" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b2f04c017eaf14b9896fc@news.newsguy.com...
> I've been with VZ for 5 years and three phones.
>
> I've always gotten passable signal strength in one part of my house and
> good reception in the other part.
>
> I just signed a new 2 year contract about 3 months ago.
>
> Suddenly, in the past few weeks signal strength deteriorated so that I
> can no longer receive calls in one part of the house and people are
> complaining my signal is breaking up almost no matter where I am.
>
> VZ swapped out my phone, moved my address book over etc., but the signal
> strength is exactly the same - inadequate, where it has been adequate
> for 5 years. I've put in two trouble tickets - the problem continues.
>
> If I sign a new contract and then my service seriously deteriorates and
> I have a two year contract, is there anything I can do?
>
> Louise
June 8, 2004 4:28:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <uhixc.12680$IQ2.6728188@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
SLL@cosenet.com says...
> Demand them to put a cell site in your yard!
>
> Me me me
>
> Thats whats its all about
>
>
> '
> "Louise" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b2f04c017eaf14b9896fc@news.newsguy.com...
> > I've been with VZ for 5 years and three phones.
> >
> > I've always gotten passable signal strength in one part of my house and
> > good reception in the other part.
> >
> > I just signed a new 2 year contract about 3 months ago.
> >
> > Suddenly, in the past few weeks signal strength deteriorated so that I
> > can no longer receive calls in one part of the house and people are
> > complaining my signal is breaking up almost no matter where I am.
> >
> > VZ swapped out my phone, moved my address book over etc., but the signal
> > strength is exactly the same - inadequate, where it has been adequate
> > for 5 years. I've put in two trouble tickets - the problem continues.
> >
> > If I sign a new contract and then my service seriously deteriorates and
> > I have a two year contract, is there anything I can do?
> >
> > Louise
>
>
>
Having a bad day?
June 9, 2004 4:03:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <7glbc0lv32r2c0lolnfmaduf51m02pvsvq@4ax.com>, inundated9
@yahoo.com says...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:04:05 -0400, Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >VZ swapped out my phone, moved my address book over etc., but the signal
> >strength is exactly the same - inadequate, where it has been adequate
> >for 5 years. I've put in two trouble tickets - the problem continues.
>
> I'm curious - same phone?
>
> I wonder if they'd let you "try out" a new phone. The Nokia 3589i
> supposedly has the best RF performance of any VZW phone, and even if
> they're having local service issues...maybe it'd help your signal
> inside the house over what it normally would be.
>
> Other than that...I'd suggest persistence.
>
> Mike
>
Thanks for your suggestion.

A telephone tech person actually stayed on the phone (landline) with me
today as we teminated service on my VX4400 (the replacement), and
created service on an old Star Tac I still have.

The signal weakness and instability was present on both phones. He said
this gave him enough info to go back to the people in the field
"proving" that it isn't the phone. We then returned service to my VX
4400.

If I need to go further up the ladder, I do plan to ask them to let me
try a new phone and return it if it's no different - with the
understanding that I would purchase it, if it did improve signal
strength and stability. I'll keep the Nokia in mind.

Louise
June 9, 2004 4:04:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <10cbsroehlo1i02@corp.supernews.com>, roadiebob@yahoo.com
says...
> I have a 3589i and it is significantly better then old audiovox phone I had.
>
> one other consideration would be that they have cell site down for maint or
> upgrade
> and when that site returns to service, your service will improve. Might be
> worth
> asking Verizon tech support.
>
>
> "Mike" <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7glbc0lv32r2c0lolnfmaduf51m02pvsvq@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:04:05 -0400, Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >VZ swapped out my phone, moved my address book over etc., but the signal
> > >strength is exactly the same - inadequate, where it has been adequate
> > >for 5 years. I've put in two trouble tickets - the problem continues.
> >
> > I'm curious - same phone?
> >
> > I wonder if they'd let you "try out" a new phone. The Nokia 3589i
> > supposedly has the best RF performance of any VZW phone, and even if
> > they're having local service issues...maybe it'd help your signal
> > inside the house over what it normally would be.
> >
> > Other than that...I'd suggest persistence.
> >
> > Mike
>
>
They say they "were" having trouble in my area a few weeks ago but all
their information says it's been fixed. The time of the "fix" seems to
coincide (roughly) with the degredation in my service :-)

But I'll keep after new information on this.

Louise
Anonymous
June 11, 2004 5:42:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:43:44 -0400, Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:

>I also found someone else in my apartment building with the same "sudden
>onset" problem. I'm trying to get her to file a trouble ticket also.
>I'm even considering posting notices around the block telling people
>what number to call, to demand a trouble ticket be opened, etc. If
>enough trouble tickets are opened........ I guess I'm having delusions
>of power :-)

I didn't do printed notices, but getting other VZW users in the area
to complain was one tactic that worked for me when I had to convince
VZW there really was a signal hole out here. If you print up flyers,
just don't place them inside or attach them to mail boxes. The USPS
can get a little pissy about that.
June 12, 2004 4:03:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <rarjc0poeemjo4o8oria6lctibghe5ua87@4ax.com>,
ghost@general.lee says...
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:43:44 -0400, Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >I also found someone else in my apartment building with the same "sudden
> >onset" problem. I'm trying to get her to file a trouble ticket also.
> >I'm even considering posting notices around the block telling people
> >what number to call, to demand a trouble ticket be opened, etc. If
> >enough trouble tickets are opened........ I guess I'm having delusions
> >of power :-)
>
> I didn't do printed notices, but getting other VZW users in the area
> to complain was one tactic that worked for me when I had to convince
> VZW there really was a signal hole out here. If you print up flyers,
> just don't place them inside or attach them to mail boxes. The USPS
> can get a little pissy about that.
>
>
Today I put a notice on a nearby lamp post with little pulloffs for the
VZ tech support number. I will do more if it isn't fixed but I did get
a call this evening (after my neighbor spoke to the same tech), saying
they would send out a crew to check out the local cell sites.

I'm hopeful :-)

Louise
June 13, 2004 12:05:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:33:06 -0000, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
wrote:

>Sorry you got squeezed in the revenue enhancement, Louise. When you came
>aboard many years ago, the old reliable analog antennas were at 500' with
>some serious gain that blasted a signal into your house, even on CDMA
>digital.
>
>But, ever increasing demands for revenue, have caused "them" to lower the
>old antennas way down on the big towers so they can erect tiny minicells
>for the new spate of micropowered toyphones (150-200 milliwatts, down from
>3 watts and 600 milliwatts we used to have).

You evidently don't have a clue do you? Digital phones operate
differently than analog AMPS phones. If you apply the same standard
to digital you of course won't have the same. Before you start
spouting off about how poorly things are now you should at least do a
little research.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
Anonymous
June 13, 2004 1:51:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

New here huh?
Larry "spouts off' quite a bit. Sometimes accurate, but very rarely.
Don't let him fool you however. He actually knows quite a bit, but would rather stick
to his old and highly inaccurate "AMPS, bla, bla, bla", arguments

Bitches about "revenue enhancement" alot. But never has acknowledged the fact that if digital,
lower power and minicells, etc. were NOT used, no one could make a call nowadays because of the sheer
volume of cell phones in people's hands today. AMPS became obsolete, so things HAD TO change.

Digital phones, lower output power, minicells, etc, etc are because of the exponential growth of
cellular use in this country, period. The technology was needed to handle the greatly increased traffic.
Not because of some nefarious plot to rip the public off.


"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote in message news:t6roc0pb1rj5fule5jnt9d76roovqaav2p@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:33:06 -0000, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Sorry you got squeezed in the revenue enhancement, Louise. When you came
> >aboard many years ago, the old reliable analog antennas were at 500' with
> >some serious gain that blasted a signal into your house, even on CDMA
> >digital.
> >
> >But, ever increasing demands for revenue, have caused "them" to lower the
> >old antennas way down on the big towers so they can erect tiny minicells
> >for the new spate of micropowered toyphones (150-200 milliwatts, down from
> >3 watts and 600 milliwatts we used to have).
>
> You evidently don't have a clue do you? Digital phones operate
> differently than analog AMPS phones. If you apply the same standard
> to digital you of course won't have the same. Before you start
> spouting off about how poorly things are now you should at least do a
> little research.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
Anonymous
June 13, 2004 4:51:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Richard Ness <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> New here huh?
> Larry "spouts off' quite a bit. Sometimes accurate, but very rarely.
> Don't let him fool you however. He actually knows quite a bit, but would
> rather stick
> to his old and highly inaccurate "AMPS, bla, bla, bla", arguments

And he will occasionally go off on a rant completely tangential to the
thread he's posting in.


> Bitches about "revenue enhancement" alot. But never has acknowledged the
> fact that if digital,
> lower power and minicells, etc. were NOT used, no one could make a call
> nowadays because of the sheer
> volume of cell phones in people's hands today. AMPS became
> obsolete, so things HAD TO change.

Whoa, Nellie. Cause-and-effect relationship is wrong here. The carriers
started introducing digital in the mid-90s presumably because they wanted
to add more capacity, but the ability to do so brought airtime rates way down.
Do you really think gazillions of people would be using cell phones now if
they were still as expensive as they were in 1994 and 1995? No.

> Digital phones, lower output power, minicells, etc, etc are because of
> the exponential growth of
> cellular use in this country, period. The technology was needed to handle
> the greatly increased traffic.
> Not because of some nefarious plot to rip the public off.

Don't be silly. Digital is in wide use due to the added capacity. The demand
wasn't *there* in the mid-90s, but the carriers knew they'd eventually run
out of capacity if they stuck with AMPS.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
June 13, 2004 4:51:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Remember N-AMPS??
Needed because of increased demand and overloading of AMPS channels.
I was there (US West Cellular) during those years. I saw the traffic printouts...
Very steady and exponential growth since the very beginning.
One of the highest penetration growth rates of any consumer device... ever.
Prices came down because of demand, competition and PCS.

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message news:p a-dnUMfv8aQCVHdRVn-sw@lmi.net...
> Richard Ness <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> > New here huh?
> > Larry "spouts off' quite a bit. Sometimes accurate, but very rarely.
> > Don't let him fool you however. He actually knows quite a bit, but would
> > rather stick
> > to his old and highly inaccurate "AMPS, bla, bla, bla", arguments
>
> And he will occasionally go off on a rant completely tangential to the
> thread he's posting in.
>
>
> > Bitches about "revenue enhancement" alot. But never has acknowledged the
> > fact that if digital,
> > lower power and minicells, etc. were NOT used, no one could make a call
> > nowadays because of the sheer
> > volume of cell phones in people's hands today. AMPS became
> > obsolete, so things HAD TO change.
>
> Whoa, Nellie. Cause-and-effect relationship is wrong here. The carriers
> started introducing digital in the mid-90s presumably because they wanted
> to add more capacity, but the ability to do so brought airtime rates way down.
> Do you really think gazillions of people would be using cell phones now if
> they were still as expensive as they were in 1994 and 1995? No.
>
> > Digital phones, lower output power, minicells, etc, etc are because of
> > the exponential growth of
> > cellular use in this country, period. The technology was needed to handle
> > the greatly increased traffic.
> > Not because of some nefarious plot to rip the public off.
>
> Don't be silly. Digital is in wide use due to the added capacity. The demand
> wasn't *there* in the mid-90s, but the carriers knew they'd eventually run
> out of capacity if they stuck with AMPS.
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
June 13, 2004 4:51:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Remember N-AMPS??
Needed because of increased demand and overloading of AMPS channels.
I was there (US West Cellular) during those years. I saw the traffic printouts...
Very steady and exponential growth since the very beginning.
One of the highest penetration growth rates of any consumer device... ever.
Prices came down because of demand, competition and PCS.

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message news:p a-dnUMfv8aQCVHdRVn-sw@lmi.net...
> Richard Ness <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> > New here huh?
> > Larry "spouts off' quite a bit. Sometimes accurate, but very rarely.
> > Don't let him fool you however. He actually knows quite a bit, but would
> > rather stick
> > to his old and highly inaccurate "AMPS, bla, bla, bla", arguments
>
> And he will occasionally go off on a rant completely tangential to the
> thread he's posting in.
>
>
> > Bitches about "revenue enhancement" alot. But never has acknowledged the
> > fact that if digital,
> > lower power and minicells, etc. were NOT used, no one could make a call
> > nowadays because of the sheer
> > volume of cell phones in people's hands today. AMPS became
> > obsolete, so things HAD TO change.
>
> Whoa, Nellie. Cause-and-effect relationship is wrong here. The carriers
> started introducing digital in the mid-90s presumably because they wanted
> to add more capacity, but the ability to do so brought airtime rates way down.
> Do you really think gazillions of people would be using cell phones now if
> they were still as expensive as they were in 1994 and 1995? No.
>
> > Digital phones, lower output power, minicells, etc, etc are because of
> > the exponential growth of
> > cellular use in this country, period. The technology was needed to handle
> > the greatly increased traffic.
> > Not because of some nefarious plot to rip the public off.
>
> Don't be silly. Digital is in wide use due to the added capacity. The demand
> wasn't *there* in the mid-90s, but the carriers knew they'd eventually run
> out of capacity if they stuck with AMPS.
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
June 13, 2004 5:33:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1b2f85e8845149969896fe@news.newsguy.com:

> In article <uhixc.12680$IQ2.6728188@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> SLL@cosenet.com says...
>> Demand them to put a cell site in your yard!
>>
>> Me me me
>>
>> Thats whats its all about
>>

> Having a bad day?
>

Company hack?
Anonymous
June 13, 2004 5:38:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1b344aa12183b3d498970c@news.newsguy.com:

> In article <rarjc0poeemjo4o8oria6lctibghe5ua87@4ax.com>,
> ghost@general.lee says...
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:43:44 -0400, Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
Today I put a notice on a nearby lamp post with little pulloffs for
> the VZ tech support number. I will do more if it isn't fixed but I
> did get a call this evening (after my neighbor spoke to the same
> tech), saying they would send out a crew to check out the local cell
> sites.
>
> I'm hopeful :-)
>
> Louise
>
Thatagirl! If there were more customers taking an ACTIVE role in the
operations of the system, the system would improve just to keep it out of
the media.....(c;
Anonymous
June 13, 2004 10:24:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:05:22 -0700, Joseph wrote:

> You evidently don't have a clue do you? Digital phones operate
> differently than analog AMPS phones. If you apply the same standard
> to digital you of course won't have the same. Before you start
> spouting off about how poorly things are now you should at least do a
> little research.

Actually, whether digital or analog, radio field signal strength as applied
to antenna characteristics are the same. The fact that digital signals
transmit packets vs. an analog's steady carrier is not relevent. 600mW
packet output and 600mW analog output into an antenna would result in the
same ERP (effective radiated power).

CDMA cell phones with higher signal outputs WILL communicate to towers
farther away then will the lower powered ones. It is in THE CARRIER'S best
interest to limit your transmit range to avoid cell overcrowding, even if
this means you may have no coverage in certain areas where higher power
would grab a distant cell.

More power and higher antennas equate to more communcation range. It's
simple basic radio theory.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 6:10:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Strongbox <strongbox@no.mail> wrote in
news:1mtocd29jt7gw$.1pbmol9eqt504.dlg@40tude.net:

> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:05:22 -0700, Joseph wrote:
>
>> You evidently don't have a clue do you? Digital phones operate
>> differently than analog AMPS phones. If you apply the same standard
>> to digital you of course won't have the same. Before you start
>> spouting off about how poorly things are now you should at least do a
>> little research.
>
> Actually, whether digital or analog, radio field signal strength as
> applied to antenna characteristics are the same. The fact that
> digital signals transmit packets vs. an analog's steady carrier is not
> relevent. 600mW packet output and 600mW analog output into an antenna
> would result in the same ERP (effective radiated power).

Oh, no! EVERYBODY (well at the sales counter, at least) KNOWS CDMA is
fu**ing magic (FM). None of the physics characteristics of radio,
propagation, reflectivity, root mean square laws, amazingly expensive radio
mapping programs used to predict coverage for a transmitter over terrain,
terrestrial noises like a hot parking lot.....NONE of that applies to FM
cellular modulation schemes, especially CDMA (or whatever the company
decides this week).

No matter how low the power of your toyphone is limited to, 200mw, 20mw, 1
microwatt, CDMA will make each call perfect, regardless of the antenna
placement, height above average terrain, etc. Hell, if NASA used CDMA,
they could talk to the Shuttle on the other side of the planet with NO
HOLES!

CDMA IS MAGIC, THE HOLY GRAIL OF DATA COMMUNICATIONS!
-- SARCASM OFF --

>
> CDMA cell phones with higher signal outputs WILL communicate to towers
> farther away then will the lower powered ones. It is in THE
> CARRIER'S best interest to limit your transmit range to avoid cell
> overcrowding, even if this means you may have no coverage in certain
> areas where higher power would grab a distant cell.

Dead on truth. The only thing the CARRIER cares about is REVENUE PER
SQUARE MILE....

>
> More power and higher antennas equate to more communcation range.
> It's simple basic radio theory.
>

Hmm....That must be why FOX 24 is running FIVE MEGAWATTS at 1,975' up the
tower. It's why they went to all that EXPENSE.......R-A-N-G-E.

RADIO RULE #1 - POWER IS OUR FRIEND. In cellular, power is the CONSUMER'S
friend. But, watch the next round of toyphone wonders. I think we're
gonna be begging for 100 mw phones in 2 years.....

RF means nothing. Ask any of the RF experts at your sales floor.

Larry
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 5:40:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 02:10:55 -0000, Larry W4CSC wrote:

> watch the next round of toyphone wonders. I think we're
> gonna be begging for 100 mw phones in 2 years.....

Yep. Tradeoffs must be made between output power (better range) and running
games, wallpaper, animated GIF screensavers, cameras, etc. The batteries
can only support so much electrical demand and still be small enough to keep
the cellphones tiny and run the phone for a reasonable length of time.

The carriers appear to be focusing on the glitter instead of the basic
function of cellphones - reliable communications with decent coverage areas.
!