Iphone's crap ANTENNA

I found it! The antenna is ON THE BOTTOM?!!

http://iphoneantenna.com/

iPhone's antenna is nothing but a little strip along the bottom edge. The
3G antenna must be even worse than this PoS!

Wilson Antennas also has information on this page about how to put iPhone
into test mode by dialing:
STAR 3001 # 12345 # STAR
and pressing send
check out the webpage for information on what it's reading.

Good signal is 50 on the test page. Crappy is 100....I suspect we're
reading -dbm, which is normal for sellphones.

Their assertion that ATT is on 850 Mhz is untrue. ATT in SC is all on PCS.
Alltel and Verizon are on B850 and A850 systems across SC. I think ATT is
on 1900 in Georgia, too....which makes this problem much worse as 1900 Mhz
has much poorer range.

Look at its antenna. No wonder its range sucks and it runs the power wide
open to consume the battery.... Who dreamed this up? The case designers
and Jobs need to start listening to the RF ENGINEERS!

Next time your iphone signal goes tits up, TURN IT UPSIDE DOWN and see if
it works better!

In article <Xns9AFC53F8AA5E4noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> Look at its antenna. No wonder its range sucks and it runs the power wide
> open to consume the battery.... Who dreamed this up? The case designers
> and Jobs need to start listening to the RF ENGINEERS!

No doubt some RF engineers were involved in the project--and when they
expressed their opinion, they got screamed at in front of everyone by
Steve Jobs.

It's not about the RF performance. It never will be.

Larry wrote:
> which makes this problem much worse as 1900 Mhz
> has much poorer range.

Which is why 1900 towers are spaced closer to
compensate...so its a moot point.

DTC <DTC@no_spam_nothing_here.foob> wrote in news:gxKpk.17012$LG4.12684
@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:

> Larry wrote:
>> which makes this problem much worse as 1900 Mhz
>> has much poorer range.
>
> Which is why 1900 towers are spaced closer to
> compensate...so its a moot point.
>

In New York or Chicago, that's true. It's NOT true in 95% of the real
estate of America....which is why they still use AMPS....(c;

It's not a moot point at all in most places....

Larry wrote:
> In New York or Chicago, that's true. It's NOT true in 95% of the real
> estate of America....which is why they still use AMPS....(c;
>
> It's not a moot point at all in most places....

Verizon estimate that "less than one percent" of its roughly 60
million subscribers are using analog phones and likely the
same percentage for other carriers.

DTC <DTC@no_spam_nothing_here.foob> wrote in news:Yk6qk.8094$cn7.7057
@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com:

> Larry wrote:
>> In New York or Chicago, that's true. It's NOT true in 95% of the
real
>> estate of America....which is why they still use AMPS....(c;
>>
>> It's not a moot point at all in most places....
>
> Verizon estimate that "less than one percent" of its roughly 60
> million subscribers are using analog phones and likely the
> same percentage for other carriers.
>

The old carriers in the boondocks aren't Verizon. There are hundreds of
mom and pop cellphone carriers that cover the rural areas the big city
boys weren't willing to invest in. Lots of them are still on the air,
and a lot of them are still giving great AMPS service to their customers
on large farms, ranches in the West, rural areas across the flatlands
where digital is useless.

Uncle Fred's Tire and Telephone is alive and quite well in rural
America....Fred even sells them dialup internet at 56Kbps for $12.95/mo
from his massive servers in the closet of the Tire company office!
There's a stack of 24 plastic modems up on the shelf!

Texas is a good example:

Rural Cellular Association
Member License Areas for Texas

Cellular CMA654 RSA 03, TX Plateau Telecommunications, Inc.
CMA652 RSA 01, TX XIT Cellular
CMA666 RSA 15, TX Five Star Wireless
CMA658 RSA 07, TX Peoples Wireless
CMA294 San Angelo, TX West Central Cellular
CMA666 RSA 15, TX West Central Cellular
CMA659 RSA 08, TX Wes-Tex Telecommunications, Inc
CMA656 RSA 05, TX Brazos Cellular
CMA655 RSA 04, TX Caprock Cellular
CMA663 RSA 12, TX Commnet Wireless
CMA658 RSA 07, TX Lamar County Cellular
CMA658 RSA 07, TX Etex Communications
CMA662 RSA 11, TX Cellular One of East Texas
CMA660 RSA 09, TX Mid-Tex Cellular
PCS BTA013 Amarillo, TX / NM / OK Panhandle Telecommunication
Systems, Inc.
BTA341 Paris, TX / OK Pine Cellular Phones
BTA443 Texarkana, TX / AR Pine Cellular Phones
BTA087 Clovis, NM / TX Plateau Telecommunications, Inc.
BTA128 El Paso, TX / NM Plateau Telecommunications, Inc.
BTA013 Amarillo, TX / NM / OK XIT Cellular
BTA003 Abilene, TX West Central Cellular
BTA040 Big Spring, TX West Central Cellular
BTA400 San Angelo, TX West Central Cellular
BTA013 Amarillo, TX / NM / OK Caprock Cellular
BTA264 Lubbock, TX Caprock Cellular
BTA418 Sherman, TX / OK Choice Wireless
BTA473 Wichita Falls, TX Choice Wireless
BTA034 Beaumont, TX Cellular One of East Texas
BTA260 Longview, TX Cellular One of East Texas
BTA265 Lufkin, TX Cellular One of East Texas
BTA419 Shreveport, LA / TX Cellular One of East Texas
BTA452 Tyler, TX Cellular One of East Texas
BTA056 Brownsville, TX Pocket Communications
BTA242 Laredo, TX Pocket Communications
BTA268 McAllen, TX Pocket Communications
BTA401 San Antonio, TX Pocket Communications
BTA003 Abilene, TX Mid-Tex Cellular
AWS CMA654 RSA 03, TX Plateau Telecommunications, Inc.
CMA300 Victoria, TX LaWard Cellular
CMA666 RSA 15, TX Hill Country Telephone Cooperative, Inc
CMA669 RSA 18, TX Hill Country Telephone Cooperative, Inc

These are all memebers of the American Roamer network, a part of RCA.
http://americanroamer.com/rca/rca_members.html

The cellular carriers mostly are AMPS carriers for RANGE across rural
Texas.

Larry wrote:
> which makes this problem much worse as 1900 Mhz
> has much poorer range.

And how many in the above list are 1900?

DTC wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>> which makes this problem much worse as 1900 Mhz has much poorer range.
>
> Which is why 1900 towers are spaced closer to
> compensate...so its a moot point.

But they're not and it's not.

A good example is my area of Silicon Valley. In many cases the 1900 MHz
carriers _want_ to space their towers closer together but they can't
because there are no places that they are being allowed to build those
towers. In many cases they simply can't justify placing more towers
because the usage isn't high enough. They need at least four times the
number of 800 MHz towers to cover the same area. However I don't see why
any of this is a problem for the iPhone, since AT&T is primarily at 800 MHz.

The other issue for AT&T and T-Mobile, in the U.S., is their lack of
analog (AMPS). Vast areas of the U.S. still have only AMPS, because it's
the only technology (in use) that's practical to cover large areas. You
can see the effect of not having AMPS if you ever travel through those
areas. This summer I was in the area of Grand Tetons, Yellowstone, parts
of Utah, parts of Idaho, and parts of California where there was often
only AMPS coverage. The CDMA coverage was also better than the GSM
coverage in these places because CDMA has greater range. I always
recommend to people with GSM that when traveling into rural and sparsely
populated areas, and national parks, that they carry a prepaid CDMA/AMPS
phone on PagePlus with them.

SMS wrote:
> because there are no places that they are being allowed to build those
> towers.

Are there *THAT* many historic preservation areas around ???

DTC wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> because there are no places that they are being allowed to build those
>> towers.
>
> Are there *THAT* many historic preservation areas around ???

Federal law doesn't prohibit cities from regulating tower siting. A city
can't discriminate among service providers and they can't regulate
siting based on perceived health risks. However they can still refuse to
allow towers in areas where they feel towers are inappropriate. It's not
limited to historic preservation districts. If a service provider wants
to sue a city over being turned down for a tower they're free to do so,
but no service provider would be that stupid.