Redigoogle wrote:
> On Jun 21, 5:36 pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>> Steve Sobol <sjso...@JustThe.net> wrote innews:slrng5qbt6.q0v.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net :
>
>>> Probably 0.6 watts like most phones...
>> We haven't had that much power luxury since the very first Motorola
>> 725 CDMA/AMPS flipphones. Power level limits now are in the 120 to
>> 180 mw range to much more inefficient antennas hidden inside the case
>> to impress the kiddies.
>>
>> 600 mw would eat the tiny batteries in an hour....
>
> That's interesting.
> So, why (or how) do users of higher end Verizon phones reports better
> reception.
> There is certainly more than subjective difference.
> Three years ago, I noticed a difference between my vx4500 and whatever
> phone was down the scale VX3200 or something.

I may be missing something but what does the transmit power of a cell
phone have to do with the quality of reception on that cell phone? If I
have more power, I may not need to be close to a tower to place a call
but it's not going to affect my reception. Now if YOU call ME, and you
have more power, I may get better reception or maybe not. I'm not
listening to your signal directly, it has to be relayed through at least
one tower.

The sensitivity and selectivity of a receiver can make a big difference
in the quality of the received speech. I suspect that the answer is
that better phones have better receivers.