On Jun 22, 3:59 pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:

I appreciate your technical knowledge, Larry.
Very informative and helpful.

> "Reception" infers the signal coming out of the tower and INTO your
> receiver.

By "good reception" I mean "easy to hear caller", "no warbelling or
cutting out" usually means good "bars" indicated but not always, and
quality of incoming call does not vary with elevation of phone, or
indoors or outdoors. Anything less than all of those qualities all at
once is, in my opinion and experience, something less than "good"
reception. I don't experience "good reception" as a matter of
"perception". It either is or it isn't.

Whatever signal is available at any locations (and it certainly varies
in strength judging from the number of bars shown) I presume that
individual phone models vary in their ability to "amplify" the signal
that is "received" through induction. Am I on the right track?

By "good transmission" I mean, call connects right away and ringing
begins, caller can hear me easily with no warbling or cutting out and
transmission does not vary with elevation of phone or indoors or
outdoors (assuming they are getting "good reception").

I understand that one cannot expect to get "good reception" or "good
transmission" with any phone all the time or every where.

To re-emphasize the original direction of this thread. Good reception
and good transmission, for me and many of my Verizon user friends in
our area changed in the last couple of months. Customers of the local
competing provider that uses (or did) same protocol and as far as I
know the same towers do not report this change although the
complaining customer sample is small. I'm trying to determine what is
different.

>Towers have far more signal than Sellphones transmit. The
> receivers are custom ICs, now.

Could you elaborate on this. If what you mean is that Towers transmit
more powerful signals than a cell phone transmits, well that's clear.
What is an IC? Integrated Circuit?

>you'll notice on the old AMPS towers,

What is an AMPS tower?

> There's no reason to care about your own "range" or "reception".

Only in the terms above.

> mini cells have been erected with antennas only 100' high, instead of the old, powerful 500'
>tall AMPS towers that covered a 10 mile circle, and still do out on the boonies.

500 foot tower?
I am in the boonies.
There are some big towers on the mountain ridges.
On the other hand, Verizon reports cell locations in two nearby
"towns" and I don't think there is even a 100 foot tower in those
areas. Could the change you suggest be a factor in the problem I'm
reporting?

Thank you
Cliff