Remedies for Better Cellphone Signal and Quality [telecom]

Remedies for Better Cellphone Signal and Quality

By ERIC A. TAUB June 26, 2013

One technology will typically trump another when it's an improvement over the existing one. Think of high-definition television compared with standard-definition TV, surround sound versus stereo, the word processor and a typewriter.

But one technology has superseded an existing one even though it provides a far worse experience than its predecessor: cellphone voice calls.

Most users will tell you they have experienced dropped calls, incomprehensible speech and voice quality that mimics speaking from the bottom of a fish tank.

Of course, the reason for the cellphone's triumph over the great voice quality of traditional landline phones is obvious: the mobile phone and the smartphone, in particular, have changed the nature of communication. Convenience and capability have quite understandably trumped quality.

But as more Americans drop their landline service in favor of a cellphone, the importance of a good voice connection at home grows. Unfortunately, a call that works well on the street often deteriorates significantly in the bedroom or basement.

Barely adequate signals outside turn even worse once they must penetrate concrete, metal and multiple walls. Fortunately, you can take some steps to reduce weak and dropped calls. And soon, you will be able to improve the quality of the voice itself.

..

formatting link

Reply to
Monty Solomon
Loading thread data ...

That's nonsense. If improved technology "typically" triumphed, we'd all be driving electric cars that cost less than half as much to operate as what we /do/ use, which are vehicles functionally identical to a Model "A" Ford.

High-definition television was available in France thirty years ago. It didn't happen here because American TV networks and station owners and cable operators fought it tooth-and-nail, until their friends in the industry had time to amortize their patents on NTSC TV sets, and they had time to gear up for the new standard at minimal cost.

If having an "improvement" was all that was needed to succeed, Micro- soft would have been out of business a year after Linus Torvalds published the operating system that became Linux.

Oh, Ghod, that's just so far off the road that Bambi is running away at this very moment. The "predecessor" to cellphone voice calls was IMTS, which had all the problems associated with connecting a *RADIO* to a telephone line, coupled with the impedimenta of a trunk-mounted transceiver, a roof mounted antenna, and a gargantuan control head that took up more space than a CB set, and a special alternator to handle the current drain.

Convenience and capability *have* trumped quality: we have raised a generation of cellular users who are so over-stimulated that it's a wonder they can ever form a coherent thought. In other words, the convenience of being able to give a knee-jerk reaction has allowed our children the capability to pretend that they were really doing their jobs while the quality of their responses has decreased.

If those who choose to use a cellular *RADIO* to connect to the PSTN are dissatisfied with the range or voice quality of their *RADIO* (which they are calling a phone), then they have a reliatble, cost-effective alternative available for less than a dollar a day.

Proving once again that the laws of physics aren't negotiable. For my part, I propose that we all start reducing weak and dropped calls by turning cellphones off, and get used to having some peace and *QUIET* in our homes for a change.

Now, excuse me while I complain, but I abhor one-size-fits-all comparisons when they're used to make a reporter's job easier: we all know that it's not technology that triumphs. As Howard Armstrong, Nicola Tesla, William Lear, John DeLorean, and Gary Kildall all found out the hard way, it's political muscle and bare-knuckle corporate battles that count.

Bill

Reply to
Bill Horne

This part amuses me. I've installed a number of mobile amateur radio rigs. One of the first rules is to wire directly to the battery and bypass the alternator. And both leads get fused in that setup.

Reply to
T

I do think the writer has a valid point regarding voice quality (and latency) on cellular phones. When given a choice, I will place calls by POTS. The voice quality is much better and the latency is much lower. My old cellphone also sounded much better and had lower latency. It was analog. Now, though we've gained spectrum efficiency, the experience of a phone call on cellular is just tolerable. We put up with it for the convenience of mobility. But, if I really want to call someone, I'll use a real phone.

Remember the Sprint "pin drop" TV ads? Could a cellular company differentiate their service by offering quality audio?

There also is talk of abandoning circuit based telephony for packet (IP) based. For those using VoIP, how is the latency? Is it easy to carry on a conversation?

Harold

Reply to
Harold Hallikainen

Yes. Would enough people be willing to pay for it to make it a viable business? Don't be silly.

You can get much better audio quality at the cost of higher latency using applications like Skype. I gather that LTE audio is all VoIP underneath, so maybe there'll be a button you can adjust.

Reply to
John Levine

As I recall, the original MTS system used an alternator with multiple windings, including a high voltage winding to generate the B+ for the final tubes. I don't know about IMTS.

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey

People in Europe would be. In fact, there is a "low compression" service specifically available in much of Europe.

The latency drives me up the wall just as much as the compression artifacts. Still, it's weird listening to music on hold and not being able to tell what it is.

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.