Internal VS. External Antenna

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <p08Ae.153230$t07.27661@fe12.lga> on Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:55:00 -0400,
"Kentish" <Kentish@bluffers.com> wrote:

>Is there a significance about internal (hidden) versus external
>(protruding/retractable) antenna in terms of signal reception?

In general, external is better.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <m9h2d1pdgbtiu6j5r9qlldghmdrilftbi7@4ax.com> on Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:58:28
-0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:55:00 -0400, "Kentish" <Kentish@bluffers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Is there a significance about internal (hidden) versus external
>>(protruding/retractable) antenna in terms of signal reception?
>
>Now since they've been doing it for several years now there isn't a
>whole lot of difference. A difference is that you won't be breaking
>off the antenna and getting it replaced as often which is part of the
>reason that manufacturers went with internal. Some have mastered it
>better than others. Nokia has done it well. Ericsson has not or
>perhaps it's just a poorly enginnering job that makes Ericsson
>handsets have worse RF than others.

It's actually urban myth/legend -- model differences notwithstanding, Sony
Ericsson handsets are as good in general as any other manufacturer (and better
than most IMHO). For example, I know of no tri-band Nokia that does a better
job on RF with internal antenna than the Sony Ericsson Z600. And I've yet to
see any handset with an internal antenna that measures up to the Sony Ericsson
T39m with (extendable) Extended Range antenna.

Of course, as always, YMMV.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>