Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Minimum RF Performance?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 1:55:51 AM

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

Why does the customer have to be concerned with which cell phone provides
the best reception if he lives in a low signal area? I have seen many folks
try to purchase the phone that has the best reception. Note that the phone
with the best reception is not always the most expensive phone.

Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will provide
adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?

It seems that the cell phone carriers could solve this problem by
establishing better RF performance standards for all cell phone suppliers.
Therefore the reception of all makes and models of phones would be
identical.

More about : minimum performance

Anonymous
April 6, 2005 4:43:58 AM

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

"Bubba DeBub" <BubbaDeBub@yeehaw.redneck.com> wrote in message
news:rZJ4e.29554$v26.20895@fed1read06...
> Why does the customer have to be concerned with which cell phone provides
> the best reception if he lives in a low signal area? I have seen many
folks
> try to purchase the phone that has the best reception. Note that the phone
> with the best reception is not always the most expensive phone.
>
> Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
> performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will
provide
> adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?
>
> It seems that the cell phone carriers could solve this problem by
> establishing better RF performance standards for all cell phone suppliers.
> Therefore the reception of all makes and models of phones would be
> identical.
>
I hope that other factors such as cost, features, size, battery life are
also considered, maybe the carriers can offer a choice of phones so I can
pick the one I want. What we need is standards on is the number of picals in
camera phones and the height of 50% fall survival rate. By the way to get
equal RF performance you don't need to change the phones, the carrier could
mesure the phones performance and add an index to the table where the esn is
stored and handicap the phone at the cell site now all phones are equal (
lowest common denominator ).
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 12:50:02 PM

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

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:55:51 -0700, "Bubba DeBub"
<BubbaDeBub@yeehaw.redneck.com> wrote:
>Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
>performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will provide
>adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?

Because there's no free lunch, and improving RF performance may result in
trade-offs in areas like size, weight, battery life, cost, etc. Your
question is like suggesting that all cars and SUVs get 45 mpg.

--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
Related resources
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 12:50:03 PM

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

In message <sf8751pohccd6q9mtlaiut12sk0ee4fk8d@4ax.com> Bob Scheurle
<njtbob@X-verizon-X.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:55:51 -0700, "Bubba DeBub"
><BubbaDeBub@yeehaw.redneck.com> wrote:
>>Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
>>performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will provide
>>adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?
>
>Because there's no free lunch, and improving RF performance may result in
>trade-offs in areas like size, weight, battery life, cost, etc. Your
>question is like suggesting that all cars and SUVs get 45 mpg.

However, requiring the RF performance to be documented fully in
understandable terms (in other words, some sort of index or aggregate
number that indicates which phone is "better" in terms of RF
performance)




--
'Tis far better to have snipped too much than to never have snipped at all.
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 12:50:04 PM

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

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 04:17:37 -0600, DevilsPGD wrote:

>
> However, requiring the RF performance to be documented fully in
> understandable terms (in other words, some sort of index or aggregate
> number that indicates which phone is "better" in terms of RF
> performance)

So you want a color scale? That is not going to happen the way you want it
for a few reasons. Keep in mind they do publish the RF radiation along
with various tests on it's output with the FCC which you can look up if
you so choose. First off to design a phone that has a great feature set
and the best reception you have to put money into the best hardware you
can find, risk producing a large/heavy phone along with lower battery
life. These kind of considerations would be fine if it wasn't for the fact
that every cell phone manufacture is trying to out sell each other and the
more they can cut their costs along with producing a product with the
feature set/size their customers want the more they will sell. The second
reason why they won't implement a rating system is because of how
impractical measuring RF reception on a moving low powered device that is
excepted to work with almost no signal(according to some people) is. Since
the radios the phones use may not even be the same model or utilize the
same antenna design listing a scale that will be accurate, from a consumer
prospective, would take time and money that would only hurt cell phone
sales in the long run and be dumbed down to a point where it can't be used
for anything useful. Such as how the signal bars on a phone allow a glance
at your probably to make a call with only your specific phone and not
others.

When I mention that the scale would hurt cell phone sales the reasoning
behind this is that who wants to buy a phone with a low reception rating?
With this scale people will only want to buy the best within their price
range. Wither or not this scale means anything it will make people
think that this phone with a rating of 7 is better then this other one
with a 5. By putting a rating system that most likely will have no direct
real world(usable) relation all cellphone providers allow themselves to do
is build a system where that as soon as you put a cell phone on the shelf
it's value is related not to it's feature set or actual performance but to
a number that is in place to make people think the phone "might" work
everywhere they take it.
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 3:25:49 PM

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

I haven't really noticed much difference in reception among the various
phones that I've used and tested. They were all about the same.
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 5:24:55 PM

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

Bubba DeBub wrote:

> Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
> performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will provide
> adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?

Actually, there are minimum standards that are often set by the wireless
carrier. When a phone is takem in and diagnostics are done on it, RF
performance is one of the indicators used to judge whether a phone is
considered "in spec." It must meet a minimum performance level, it must
be able to step through a range of transmit levels, and at least in the
case of CDMA, it must not exceed a certain maximum level (because a
phone that transmits too powerfully on CDMA will unnecessarily raise the
noise floor and degrade the performance of other phones in the same sector).

That said, a minimum is just that, a minimum. Some phones are still "in
spec" but perform better than others. Carriers can conceiveably make
their standards more stringent and demand better minimum performance,
but that still won't eliminate discussions about what phones are better
at reception than others. Customers will continue to push the envelope
on which phones work well or better than others in fringe areas, for as
long as fringe areas continue to exist.

The only way to eliminate this is to make each and every phone uniform
in size, shape, and design, and to completely replace the current base
of phones out in the field with this uniform model. Considering that
cell phones have become a fashion accessory and appeal to various tastes
and styles, some customers want more out of their phones (camera, PDA,
blutooth, data) than others, and handset makers want to be able to make
their designs unique from their competitors, this just isn't going to
happen anytime soon.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 5:33:02 PM

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

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:55:51 -0700, Bubba DeBub wrote:

> Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
> performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will provide
> adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?

There is only so much space in a cell phone to keep the size managable.
When users demand add-ons like cameras, memory cards, MP3 players, etc.
compromises have to be made on the RF circuitry.

It's interesting to note that one of the best RF performers was the simple
Moto StarTac series. No frills - just great performance.
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 11:32:57 PM

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

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:33:02 GMT, CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:55:51 -0700, Bubba DeBub wrote:
>
>> Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
>> performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will provide
>> adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?
>
>There is only so much space in a cell phone to keep the size managable.
>When users demand add-ons like cameras, memory cards, MP3 players, etc.
>compromises have to be made on the RF circuitry.
>
>It's interesting to note that one of the best RF performers was the simple
>Moto StarTac series. No frills - just great performance.

I used a StarTac for about 7 month's worth of testing and never could
get used to the UI. I was never so glad to give a test phone back. I
was thinking that the Samsung A500 was the worst phone I ever used
until you reminded me of the Moto. :-)
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 3:00:48 PM

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

Just for the record if I had to pick one phone the StarTac 7867 was the
worst performing phone I've ever used. It dropped more calls than any
other phone, not to mention the UI was something I could never get used
to.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 3:24:05 PM

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

"Central" <spam2@central.2y.net> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.04.06.12.47.46.815614@central.2y.net...
> from a consumer
> prospective, would take time and money that would only hurt cell phone
> sales in the long run and be dumbed down to a point where it can't be used
> for anything useful.

I agree it would probably have to be dumpbed down to the point where it
isn't useful, although OVERALL sales wouldn't suffer -- it's just which
manufacturer gets the sale that could change.

I'd first like to see regular analog TVs and AM/FM radios provide
sensitivity ratings -- they're still simply enough you could get a
reasonably standardized, useful result that SOME consumers might make use
of.

I do think that marketing departments tend to be overly fearful of
publishing technical information; I believe their flaw is in thinking that
many people would consider it when, in actuality, the vast majority of
consumers couldn't care less about the phone's technical RF performance.
Look at cars and cameras -- magazines such as Car & Driver and Professional
Photographer produce very detailed technical test results that some people
use as part of their buying decision, but the vast majority of people buy
cars and cameras based on the features 'marketed' to them, no technical
questions asked.

On the other hand, far too many people think that "MHz" alone is what they
should chose computers by... :-(
April 7, 2005 9:19:55 PM

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

On 7 Apr 2005 11:00:48 -0700, larryt510@hotmail.com wrote:

>Just for the record if I had to pick one phone the StarTac 7867 was the
>worst performing phone I've ever used. It dropped more calls than any
>other phone, not to mention the UI was something I could never get used
>to.

Go to Nokia. Best UI in the business since it's basically been the
same for years. Nokia has a reputation for great RF reception as
well. Even in the CDMA models it does really well even though CDMA
has not always been Nokia's strong point, but I believe many people
who use them have been satisfied at their performance.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:11:01 PM

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

"DevilsPGD" <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:0tb751puljb6f88uh1ebcgs9lc1tnkmniq@news.readfreenews.net...
> However, requiring the RF performance to be documented fully in
> understandable terms (in other words, some sort of index or aggregate
> number that indicates which phone is "better" in terms of RF
> performance)

It just can't be done. As I mentioned, try something simpler first --
computers. How do you go about boiling their performance down to just one
number that lets you choose the better one?
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 5:36:11 AM

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

In message <_pidne1OYf5pVcvfRVn-pQ@comcast.com> "Joel Kolstad"
<JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote:

>"DevilsPGD" <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
>news:0tb751puljb6f88uh1ebcgs9lc1tnkmniq@news.readfreenews.net...
>> However, requiring the RF performance to be documented fully in
>> understandable terms (in other words, some sort of index or aggregate
>> number that indicates which phone is "better" in terms of RF
>> performance)
>
>It just can't be done. As I mentioned, try something simpler first --
>computers. How do you go about boiling their performance down to just one
>number that lets you choose the better one?
>

Fair enough -- Give me a set of 5 numbers which are consistent from
manufacturer to manufacturer.

Let me decide which metric is more important to *me* -- As it is, there
is virtually no information on RF performance in any way, shape or form
on any of the cell phone boxes I have here.


--
Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal
parts water and papertowel.
-- Dennis Miller
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 9:10:08 AM

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

"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message news:_pidne1OYf5pVcvfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
> "DevilsPGD" <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
> news:0tb751puljb6f88uh1ebcgs9lc1tnkmniq@news.readfreenews.net...
>> However, requiring the RF performance to be documented fully in
>> understandable terms (in other words, some sort of index or aggregate
>> number that indicates which phone is "better" in terms of RF
>> performance)
>
> It just can't be done. As I mentioned, try something simpler first --
> computers. How do you go about boiling their performance down to just one
> number that lets you choose the better one?

I don't think the OP is asking for an overall performance measurement,
just the RF sensitivity, which is only one parameter, and is indeed
measurable. I've seen RF sensitivity spec'd for high performance receivers
such as military and ham shortwave radios, but never for consumer
devices. Manufacturers consider it to be sensitive proprietary information.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 1:08:49 PM

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

Bubba DeBub wrote:
> Why does the customer have to be concerned with which cell phone
> provides the best reception if he lives in a low signal area? I have
> seen many folks try to purchase the phone that has the best
> reception. Note that the phone with the best reception is not always
> the most expensive phone.
>
> Why can't the cell phone manufacturers establish standards for RF
> performance so that all cell phones sold by a cellular carrier will
> provide adequate reception in the most minimal signal conditions?
>
> It seems that the cell phone carriers could solve this problem by
> establishing better RF performance standards for all cell phone
> suppliers. Therefore the reception of all makes and models of phones
> would be identical.

This reminds me of the baseball player who suggested that first base be
moved out an extra six inches. The idea was to eliminate all the close
calls.

Same thing with phone coverage. If all the phones suddenly became twice as
sensitive, it would be silly for the providers to build so many cells.
Economics would dictate that the number of cells be decreased by - oh about
1.0/1.414.

Then, in this imaginary world of incredible receivers, like the baseball
players who have to go an extra six inches to get to first base, some phones
will make it, and others will not. We'll be back where we are today, only
with more of our nickles and dimes tied up in great receiver technology, and
less money invested in cell towers.
--

Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 4:09:36 PM

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

"Manufacturers consider it to be sensitive proprietary information."

Not so.... They can consider all they want but in the US all RF issues
are regulated by the FCC. Every cell phone in the US has an FCC ID
number. To get approved for use in the US all cell phone manufacturers
have to submit all pertinent information for every model to the FCC
which makes it public information.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 5:38:54 AM

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

John Richards wrote:
> "Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message
> news:_pidne1OYf5pVcvfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...

>> It just can't be done. As I mentioned, try something simpler first
>> -- computers. How do you go about boiling their performance down to
>> just one number that lets you choose the better one?
>
>
> I don't think the OP is asking for an overall performance measurement,
> just the RF sensitivity, which is only one parameter, and is indeed
> measurable.

And we're saying that that's all fine and good, but just knowing RF
sensitivity isn't going to be an accurate indicator. In fact given the
nature of CDMA, a phone that is TOO sensitive can actually be a
detriment in a heavily-loaded network, because the phone will see too
much of a noise floor, and the EC/Io seen by the handset will such that
the phone actually won't be useable.

I think the problem here is that most people THINK they understand the
electronics in their phones, but in reality they don't know the half of
it. This isn't analog radio, where greater sensitivity is all you need
to pull in a weak signal. It USED to be that simple, but the public
demanded that cell phones be more common, work in more places, overcome
all kinds of interference that wasn't so much of a concern before, and
still be relatively cheap. And in order to meet all that,network
designers were forced to use signalling schemes and formats that aren't
exactly conventional in how they operate, and so things get pretty dicey
when you try to equate a single value with a phone being the "best."


> I've seen RF sensitivity spec'd for high performance receivers
> such as military and ham shortwave radios,

Military grade equipment tends to be either in-the-clear analog
communications for for more basic functions, and encrypted signalling
sent over analog for more sensitive communications (even the president's
wireless communications use encryption-over-AMPS... they still haven't
gone fully digital). Shortware radio has ALWAYS been analog and
in-the-clear. Even the military's implementation of CDMA is very
different from the Qualcomm standard we use today (and GSM will be using
tomorrow). So for that type of equipment, yes RF sensitivity has
relevance. For your phone, however, a high sensitivity can be misleading.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 8:29:29 AM

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

"Chas." <verktygjunk@aol.com> wrote in message news:1113073776.604033.102650@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> "Manufacturers consider it to be sensitive proprietary information."
>
> Not so.... They can consider all they want but in the US all RF issues
> are regulated by the FCC. Every cell phone in the US has an FCC ID
> number. To get approved for use in the US all cell phone manufacturers
> have to submit all pertinent information for every model to the FCC
> which makes it public information.

OK, I'll bite. If RF sensitivity data is public information, where can I access it?
Fact is, the FCC's mandate deals with issues that will affect interference
to other services, parameters like radiated power, frequency stability,
spurious harmonics, etc., but they couldn't care less about receiver
RF sensitivity.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 5:49:44 PM

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

"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:JY16e.21264$DW.584@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> "Chas." <verktygjunk@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113073776.604033.102650@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > "Manufacturers consider it to be sensitive proprietary
information."
> >
> > Not so.... They can consider all they want but in the US all RF
issues
> > are regulated by the FCC. Every cell phone in the US has an FCC ID
> > number. To get approved for use in the US all cell phone
manufacturers
> > have to submit all pertinent information for every model to the
FCC
> > which makes it public information.
>
> OK, I'll bite. If RF sensitivity data is public information, where
can I access it?
> Fact is, the FCC's mandate deals with issues that will affect
interference
> to other services, parameters like radiated power, frequency
stability,
> spurious harmonics, etc., but they couldn't care less about receiver
> RF sensitivity.

True, all I'm saying is that it is not proprietary information.

There may be some place in FCC records where this info can be
obtained. A friend worked as an engineer for HP for years doing RF
interference testing on almost all of their products. Much of the
information in her test results were filed with the FCC.
--
Chas. verktyg@aol.spamski.com (Drop spamski to E-mail me)
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 10:35:40 PM

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

"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:QsJ5e.20962$DW.8857@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> I don't think the OP is asking for an overall performance measurement,
> just the RF sensitivity, which is only one parameter, and is indeed
> measurable. I've seen RF sensitivity spec'd for high performance receivers
> such as military and ham shortwave radios, but never for consumer
> devices.

I believe that's because -- with the military and ham radios -- there's a
well-known, agreed-upon modulation method taking place. E.g., "-100dBm RF
input power required for demodulated audio to have 10dB SNR." And notice
that even this specification ignores the antenna, which is a very
significant factor for a cell phone since it can not or typically is not
changed.

For the cell phone, then, you could get as far as "-100dBm RF input power
required for raw bit error rate of 10^-2," but where do you go from there?
Different CoDecs and FEC schemes handle bit error rates very differently in
terms of their resulting performance; it is entirely conceivable that the
audio on one cell system (e.g., GSM or CDMA) sounds better with a 10^-4 BER
than a phone on another system with 10^-6 BER!

> Manufacturers consider it to be sensitive proprietary information.

Sure, but (going back to the camera lens review magazines analogy) if there
were a large demand for such data, there's no reason independent test labs
couldn't provide it.

---Joel
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:28:21 AM

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

That's a BIG TEN-FOUR GOOD BUDDY!

Bubba
(Keep the rubber side down and keep on truckin)

"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message
news:D qWdncF2tes-VcDfRVn-1A@comcast.com...
> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
> news:QsJ5e.20962$DW.8857@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> I don't think the OP is asking for an overall performance measurement,
>> just the RF sensitivity, which is only one parameter, and is indeed
>> measurable. I've seen RF sensitivity spec'd for high performance
>> receivers
>> such as military and ham shortwave radios, but never for consumer
>> devices.
>
> I believe that's because -- with the military and ham radios -- there's a
> well-known, agreed-upon modulation method taking place. E.g., "-100dBm RF
> input power required for demodulated audio to have 10dB SNR." And notice
> that even this specification ignores the antenna, which is a very
> significant factor for a cell phone since it can not or typically is not
> changed.
>
> For the cell phone, then, you could get as far as "-100dBm RF input power
> required for raw bit error rate of 10^-2," but where do you go from there?
> Different CoDecs and FEC schemes handle bit error rates very differently
> in terms of their resulting performance; it is entirely conceivable that
> the audio on one cell system (e.g., GSM or CDMA) sounds better with a
> 10^-4 BER than a phone on another system with 10^-6 BER!
>
>> Manufacturers consider it to be sensitive proprietary information.
>
> Sure, but (going back to the camera lens review magazines analogy) if
> there were a large demand for such data, there's no reason independent
> test labs couldn't provide it.
>
> ---Joel
>
>
!