UKC

I've been an iphone user for a fairly long time and I've decided I really don't want to have or pay for all that fancy stuff in my pocket. What I really want is a tiny phone that does voice and text and that's about it. Since I'm considering this I thought it would be useful to find one that will maximize my coverage. I have this perhaps misguided notion that a phone that is not encumbered with a fancy screen and processing power might be able to devote some energy to a better antenna.

Am I talking crazy? Is there hope?

Anyone have some experience or advice in picking a simple phone with better than average signal capabilities?

In reply to cdent:

I've got a really cheap Samsung GT-1200 and all it does is text and phone.It's got fantastic battery life ,I've taken to Chamonix for a fortnight, without a charger and it has'nt run out of power. It also seems to work when other peoples posh phones don't.

In reply to cdent:

I have a Samsung B2710 that has proven indestructible. The battery is on the way out though and I'm not doing well finding a replacement - loads of places claim they have them in stock until you try to order.

If you can find one then they are great simple phones though.

In reply to cdent:

A different network will make more difference than the phone antenna. The antenna output is limited whichever phone you use. All that energy is going on using a large screen and apps running in the background, a new non-smart phone will last way longer but wont have much difference in terms of signal.

In reply to itsThere:
Then why did my old Motorola Defy always show a full signal in my home whereas my newer iPhone 4 often does not show any signal at all and this is on the same Network. I think you are mistaken at least in my case. One phone can have a better receiver than another although getting hold of one without all the extras is becoming increasingly difficult.

Al

In reply to cdent:

If you are buying a 2G only basic phone then rule of thumb is that O2 and VF will have better reception as their service is in a lower frequency (900 MHz vs. 1800 MHz for EE) and therefore travels further from the mast and penetrates into buildings more effectively. This is countered slightly by EE having more masts.

Clearly this is a rule of thumb and it is worth testing signal strength of each network (buy an unlocked cheap basic phone and a couple of £1 SIM cards) where you live and in places you visit often.

In reply to davidbeynon:

Is that the Solid Immerse? I actually have a couple of them complete with a couple of (albeit a bit worn down) batteries. They're just sitting in a drawer doing nothing so could pass on the batteries for maybe a tenner or something? Let me know if you're interested.

In reply to cdent:

Nokia 105. Does voice and text.

Phenominal battery life, they claim 1 month!

I've got one for trips away where recharging may be an issue eg wild camping

In reply to cdent:

Voice and text only? Get a used Nokia 5140 brick type dumbphone from the next museum. Still regularly using mine as an outdoor phone, 13 years old and totally indestructible. Aftermarket batteries also still available.

CB

In reply to eltankos:

An hour ago I would have gone for that, but I have just been digging around and found that they released a successor this year. I might treat myself to one for my birthday

In reply to GridNorth:
Thats because its a well known problem with the iphone 4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8761240.stm

A base station is higher power but you are never as close to the antenna. The weaker signal is from the phone to the base station. The difference between a transmitter will be minimal as the antenna gain is limited. So the phone can only output so much energy.

In reply to davidbeynon:

I have a Samsung clamshell model which was bought cheap in an emergency some years ago & which seems pretty tough. It also lasts at least a week between charges. Don't know what model but its bright red.

In reply to davidbeynon:
Good to know! Enjoy

In reply to itsThere:


Not convinced. The antenna in a smart phone is tucked away. There are also assumptions that most smart phone users will be within so many metres of a base station. Power usage will therefore be optimised for the average user.

I had a Nokia something or other (it came with snake) that was awesome. Battery easily lasted several weeks and signal was always good apart from in known dead spots.

In reply to ByEek:

Network definitely has the biggest impact - ignore the coverage checkers online as they are useless - better to test in your house, where you work and places you visit regularly

In reply to ByEek:

I'm not convinced either. My £7.50 pay as you go Samsung from Tesco beats my sister's top of the range iPhone hands down for signal, both on the same network (Tesco).

In reply to itsThere:

That known issue only applies when holding the phone in a certain way. I've just done a test with two phones side by side, an iPhone and my old Motorola, on the same network which happens to be 02. The iPhone shows 2 bars sometimes dropping to one, the Motorola shows a steady 5 bars. what else can it be other than the receiver?

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

You may be right, but it's worth knowing that the number of bars shown on the display is really pretty arbitrary. I don't think you can really use that alone to compare one phone's performance to another.

In reply to itsThere:


What ever happened to phones with an proper antenna ?

In reply to GridNorth:

That iphone 4 is a good example of bad antenna design, one of the few bad designs. Holding it and putting it next to another phone is similar. Essentially anything dense near the antenna will effect it.

Whichever phone ive used in Snowdonia from old brick to smart phone over the years have had similar if not slightly better signal with a smart phone in the same places where other networks dont cover. Everyone else on O2 gets similar signal in that area.

In reply to itsThere:


iPhones had a terrible reputation for poor RF sensitivity; they were 16dB down on equivalent Sony models at one point. That corresponds to a big reduction in range (depending on the RF propagation model you use; assuming the commonly-used r^4 urban model, it's a factor of 2.5 worse).

I'd hope that they've improved that in recent models...