VX-6100 Signal Fluctuation

[Guest]

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

Picked up a 6100 under NE2 last Thursday and have noticed that the
signal indicator fluctuates quite a bit (esp. compared to the old V60).
It will usually stay from 3 - 5 but sometimes it will go from 5 down to
1 and then back up to 4 or 5 bars. It never seems to lose service or go
to analog. (I'm in the Central NJ area, and coverage has usually been
excellent.)

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it. As an example, the phone
will be showing 5 bars on the outer display. I'll open it and find it at
0-1 bars and then it will jump back up to 5. Sometimes it appears to be
related to orientation of the antenna, sometimes not.

When I put it into field test mode, the RX power never seems to vary
more than a couple of dB during these wild rides. Other phones in the
office (LG VX4500, Samsung SCH-A670, Moto V60) show some variation in
signal along with the 6100, but not with the wild fluctuations.

I have about 10 days left to return this, but I'd like to avoid going
back to get another 6100 with the same issue. I'm wondering if this is
common problem on this handset. If so, I'll grab a Motorola V265
instead. I'm not one to put a lot of faith in "it will be fixed in the
next firmware".

 

[Guest]

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

Did you buy a CELL PHONE or a signal strength meter? I really don't wonder
really. Give it a rest.
--

- Philip

"Gracie" <not.real@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c27f608cb8535e89896af@news.verizon.net
> Picked up a 6100 under NE2 last Thursday and have noticed that the
> signal indicator fluctuates quite a bit (esp. compared to the old
> V60). It will usually stay from 3 - 5 but sometimes it will go from
> 5 down to 1 and then back up to 4 or 5 bars. It never seems to lose
> service or go to analog. (I'm in the Central NJ area, and coverage
> has usually been excellent.)
>
> There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it. As an example, the phone
> will be showing 5 bars on the outer display. I'll open it and find
> it at 0-1 bars and then it will jump back up to 5. Sometimes it
> appears to be related to orientation of the antenna, sometimes not.
>
> When I put it into field test mode, the RX power never seems to vary
> more than a couple of dB during these wild rides. Other phones in
> the office (LG VX4500, Samsung SCH-A670, Moto V60) show some
> variation in signal along with the 6100, but not with the wild
> fluctuations.
>
> I have about 10 days left to return this, but I'd like to avoid
> going back to get another 6100 with the same issue. I'm wondering
> if this is common problem on this handset. If so, I'll grab a
> Motorola V265 instead. I'm not one to put a lot of faith in "it
> will be fixed in the next firmware".

 

[Guest]

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

In article <Gdqvd.2924$2J2.1730@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
1chip-state1@earthlink.net says...
> Did you buy a CELL PHONE or a signal strength meter? I really don't wonder
> really. Give it a rest.
>
Let me spell it out for you in simple terms that you may be able to
comprehend:

What I bought was a cell phone which has a signal indicator (FYI, the
bars are not actually a measure of signal strength, per se) which a
rational person would assume work somewhat accurately. The one on my
phone apparently does not. To avoid wasting time exchanging the handset
for the same model, I am trying to determine if this typical for the
6100. Simple as that, Phil.

Why does this upset you so? If you don't want to read a message, then
don't read it. In any case, until you are appointed the moderator of
this newsgroup, crawl back under your bridge, troll.

-Plonk-

 

[Guest]

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

"Gracie" <not.real@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c280b0c7d36e3c9896b0@news.verizon.net
> In article <Gdqvd.2924$2J2.1730@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> 1chip-state1@earthlink.net says...
>> Did you buy a CELL PHONE or a signal strength meter? I really
>> don't wonder really. Give it a rest.
>>
> Let me spell it out for you in simple terms that you may be able to
> comprehend:
>
> What I bought was a cell phone which has a signal indicator (FYI,
> the
> bars are not actually a measure of signal strength, per se) which a
> rational person would assume work somewhat accurately. The one on my
> phone apparently does not. To avoid wasting time exchanging the
> handset
> for the same model, I am trying to determine if this typical for the
> 6100. Simple as that, Phil.
>
> Why does this upset you so? If you don't want to read a message,
> then
> don't read it. In any case, until you are appointed the moderator of
> this newsgroup, crawl back under your bridge, troll.
>
> -Plonk-

Did you buy a cell phone or a signal strength meter, Gracie?

You should have only idiot lights instead of a bar graph. An "A" for analog
and a "D" for digital. Make your call. ;-)
--

- Philip

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:25:00 GMT, Gracie <not.real@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <Gdqvd.2924$2J2.1730@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>1chip-state1@earthlink.net says...
>> Did you buy a CELL PHONE or a signal strength meter? I really don't wonder
>> really. Give it a rest.
>>
>Let me spell it out for you in simple terms that you may be able to
>comprehend:
>
>What I bought was a cell phone which has a signal indicator (FYI, the
>bars are not actually a measure of signal strength, per se) which a
>rational person would assume work somewhat accurately. The one on my
>phone apparently does not. To avoid wasting time exchanging the handset
>for the same model, I am trying to determine if this typical for the
>6100. Simple as that, Phil.
>
>Why does this upset you so? If you don't want to read a message, then
>don't read it. In any case, until you are appointed the moderator of
>this newsgroup, crawl back under your bridge, troll.
>
>-Plonk-

While the 6100 is a nicer package In my opinion the Motorola 265 would
be a better phone for reception. After having the V60i, the LG VX 6000
and now the Audiovox 9900 my unscientific observation is that phones
with extendable antennas have better reception than phones that do
not. I do know that CDMA reception depends on antenna length.

The v265 has been reported in the Howard Forums to have excellent
reception