[ctt1wbw]

Hmmmm, when I go to the theater, I get the same max 3G speeds on the iPhone. How about that for a physics primer? That's inside completely enclosed in soundproofing material. Same thing in restaraunts, malls, you name it. If you live in an area where there are cell towers, you get signal. It's really pretty simple.

That might explain my I got no signal on I-40 going through the Appalachian Mountains. NO CELL TOWERS.

[geeksrus]

Smile :) Because if you are indeed right (which you are not) then we could sue AT&T for false information, because obstacles are exactly the reason they gave me for my poor reception on not only the iPhone but an LG as well. AT&T claims we are well within distance of not one, but two towers.

So, go figure Mr. Physics major :)

[geeksrus]

Ever heard of repeaters? Some places put them in place, for example, every Apple Store in malls because without them, the signals are non-existent.

Keep it up, you're very entertaining :)

[raegis]

Actually, AT&T's false advertising ("fewest dropped calls in CA") is already enough to warrant a huge fine. There's a difference between exagerration and just a flat out lie. When you get into specifics in advertising, you might get into trouble-- "dropped calls" can be measured, but "the best phone company" can mean lots of different meaningless things, which makes it a better lie. When you lock someone into a $70/month (actually $80 with taxes) 2-year agreement, you better delver what you promise. Nobody wants to pay $80/month for crappy service, though most wil just live with it because the iPhone is so cool. The lawsuit is sound. Unfortunately the end result probably won't help everyone.

[folklore]

ctt1wbw said:

Hmmmm, when I go to the theater, I get the same max 3G speeds on the iPhone. How about that for a physics primer? That's inside completely enclosed in soundproofing material. Same thing in restaraunts, malls, you name it. If you live in an area where there are cell towers, you get signal. It's really pretty simple.

Actually, no, wireless reception is not simple by any means. As a first step, you could check out the Wikipedia entry for cell reception.. There really is a lot more to it than proximity to a cell tower. Hell, I wish it were as simple as mere proximity.

I've been (marginally) involved in studies of dead zones in public safety voice and data networks (police, fire, EMS). Even when using the same equipment, signal availability can vary by air temperature, weather, topography, building materials, intermittent interference from other devices, and network traffic - just to name a few of the variables. Many of the variables involved are not constant over time, making diagnosis of wireless coverage problems maddeningly complex and difficult. Radio techs and vendors drive themselves crazy trying to figure this stuff out.

[ChrisLJ]

This was what I was thinking about in regards to Verizon switching their system to:

"However, on September 20, 2007, Verizon Wireless had announced a joint effort with the Vodafone Group to transition their networks to the 4G standard LTE[11] and on November 29, 2007, Verizon Wireless announced that they would start LTE trials in 2008. On December 9, 2008, Verizon announced that they intend to build and have active, an LTE network, by the end of 2009. [12] Adopting LTE would make for a gradual shift away from Verizon Wireless? current use of CDMA technology because it is a completely different platform, but would offer increased operability for users traveling worldwide.[13]"

http://en.wikipedia....erizon_Wireless

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPPLongTerm_Evolution

[vulpine]

@folklore: "So... is anyone actually happy with AT&T's coverage? ..." In a word, Yes. AT&T gives me coverage where Sprint and all the others left holes. And yes, I live along the NEC where these other companies claim to have the best coverage. Strange that AT&T can give better coverage despite the claims of their competition.
I'm also quite satisfied with the speed of my iPhone on 3G. I can use it to research issues while I'm on a service call with my clients without having to try to tap into their LAN.
For me, I'll stick with what I have. Nobody's proven to me to be better.

[darkgoob]

They SHOULD be sued for deciding to go with AT&T in the first place! AT&T is the WORST company I have ever dealt with for any reason, for any product. They charged me for two phone lines for SIX MONTHS even though I only had one phone, and they refused to refund the bill! THEN they charged me a disconnect fee when I cancelled my account due to their horrible, rude customer service, and put me in collections for it, screwing up my credit report!! They were billing me for services I was never provided, for a phone I never had!! NOT TO MENTION that AT&T has the worst sound quality and reception of any carrier due to their low frequency signal.
Sprint is TWICE the frequency and sounds way better, and gets MUCH better reception inside of buildings and structures. Oh yeah and AT&T consistently drops calls. Meanwhile on Sprint I get 40KBPS Bluetooth modem capability on my Macbook Pro using my nearly two-year-old Samsung M610.
I hope Apple LOSES this lawsuit, it will teach them a freaking lesson!!!

[darkgoob]

Who freaking cares about "global" coverage? Just make a phone that has ALL the standards in it. Could it really be that hard? Or could it really be that hard to make different versions of the phones for the different carriers? All the OTHER phone manufacturers seem to have no problem making phones for Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, and cetera in addition to AT&T.



You're not dealing with AT&T? GOOD! I'M GLAD!

[Wondercow]

ctt1wbw said:

Hmmmm, when I go to the theater, I get the same max 3G speeds on the iPhone. How about that for a physics primer?

I have a rock that repels tigers. Proof? Easy, there are no tigers near me.
>That's inside completely enclosed in soundproofing material.
If radio waves were the same as sound waves we'd all be able hear radio stations without having a radio turned on.
>Same thing in restaraunts, malls, you name it. If you live in an area where there are cell towers, you get signal. It's really pretty simple.
If there are enough towers and the engineers have done a good job (or if conditions permit their recommendations to reach reality) then you'll have better coverage.

What I'd like to know is this: You claim that obstructions don't affect the radio signal. So tell me why bridges and buildings block radio signals? Why is that I can tune a station perfectly before the bridge, perfectly after the bridge, but I get only static under the bridge?

[ctt1wbw]

Holy crap what a moron. It's called radio wave propagation. If you put a building between you and a cell tower you're gonna get a signal. Otherwise nobody would get a cell phone signal because there's always obstructions between your handset and a cell tower.

And in case you never have been to a theater they tell you to silence all cell phones and pagers. Why?

[geeksrus]

hehe the pot calling the kettle black.

Look, he totally ignored the post that linked wikipedia information on radio wave propagation, which states:

"Areas where cell phones cannot transmit to a nearby cell site, base station, or repeater are known as dead zones. Dead zones are usually areas where cell phone service is not available because the signal between the handset and the cell site antenna is blocked, usually by hilly terrain, excessive foliage, physical distance, or tall buildings"

Nobody said you get zero signal, you get poor signal, dropped calls, etc, depending on your distance to a tower and the obstacles between you and the tower. Even AT&T says this is true (which is how they scape goat out of someone like me being in "best" coverage but only getting 1-2 bars and dropped calls every 5 minutes)

[Wondercow]

ctt1wbw said:

Holy crap what a moron.

The last-ditch effort of those who have no point and can't support their arguments--name-calling. I'll also call out that you didn't even attempt to rebut the examples I gave to illustrate how utterly ridiculous your statements were.
>It's called radio wave propagation. If you put a building between you and a cell tower you're gonna get a signal.
It's called dead zones. It's called obstructive interference. It's called absorption (this is a fairly minor problem at some cellular frequencies, but still a problem when the user is many metres into a structure).
>Otherwise nobody would get a cell phone signal because there's always obstructions between your handset and a cell tower.
So we're to tiger-repelling rocks. The reduction of signal strength due to obstructions varies with the type of material, the amount, the spacing, and many other factors. A single pane of 1/4" window glass can obstruct a TV satellite signal to the point of "no picture".

Cellular phones are affected by the environment as well. This is why you may have a signal outside a building, no signal in the lobby, and a signal on the second floor. So please answer my last question: Why is that I can tune a station perfectly before the bridge, perfectly after the bridge, but I get only static under the bridge? Feel free to quote radio propagation in your reply.

Quote

And in case you never have been to a theater they tell you to silence all cell phones and pagers. Why?

I didn't claim that cellular signal couldn't penetrate "a theatre". You implied that "soundproofing material" would affect a cellular signal.
Message was edited by: Wondercow for clarification

[uhhuhher]

Apple doesnt usually wait for technology ....4G is up and running, Steve has to be chompin at the bit