Can you advise on the mobile phone with the most powerful reception/ signal?

[Top posting corrected]

"CheggersPop" <vizbuks@rzxcvbnm.com> wrote in message
news:bt9et9$83n$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...

> > Thanks for your opinion.
> > The bad news I have heard is that the heavier/bulkier the mobile, the
> > more powerful its reception.

> I'm on Vodafone UK and the signal strength on the 6600 is the best I've
ever
> had! I don't think it's that bulky and it certainly isn't heavy!
>
> Hope this helps!

The size of the phone is irrelevant. The signal you get is dependent on
two things, firstly the efficiency of the receiver/aerial combination and
secondly your location in relation to the nearest transmitter.

The first can only be determined by studying technical specifications and
the second varies from moment to moment.

Ivor

seymoria@yahoo.com (amer) wrote:

>Thanks for your opinion.
>The bad news I have heard is that the heavier/bulkier the mobile, the
>more powerful its reception.

Not necessarily true. The design of the antenna, it's profile and
efficiency has more bearing on signal quality than the weight or size
of the handset. Newer handsets are typically better than older ones,
while often being lighter and smaller.

The main factor affecting signal quality is the strength of the signal
to your upstream provider, which is down to your proximity and
line-of-sight to the nearest transmitter. If you're having problems
in a specific area it may be worth changing provider.

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

[ Mail: paul@hopwood.org.uk ]
[ WWW: http://www.hopwood.org.uk/ ]

Hi all.

Thankyou everyone for the replies.
I have noted the suggestion of Nokia 6600 from CheggersPop.

Kindly, can others give some more suggestions on other Nokia models? I
mean talking strictly of phone models, which model has the best
reception? Just name a few models based on your experience or
information.

Thanks.

seymoria@yahoo.com (amer) wrote in message news:<7d1e8174.0401040821.44e42bf3@posting.google. com>...
> Thanks for your opinion.
> The bad news I have heard is that the heavier/bulkier the mobile, the
> more powerful its reception.
>
> Regards,
> Amer

"amer" <seymoria@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7d1e8174.0401040821.44e42bf3@posting.google.c om...
| Thanks for your opinion.
| The bad news I have heard is that the heavier/bulkier the mobile, the
| more powerful its reception.
|
| Regards,
| Amer

most nokia with external "protruding" antenna, not internal ant. works very
well. 9210 has exceptionally good reception with ant. up, in urban areas
theres no need to extend the 9210s ant.

5110 for cheep cheep good reception. That stub works wonders, better than
5210 (internal ant) reception.

"tuned by RÄZO" <NOSPAMmillajovovich@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:bteouu$66fll$1@ID-157554.news.uni-berlin.de...
| "amer" <seymoria@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:7d1e8174.0401040821.44e42bf3@posting.google.c om...
| | Thanks for your opinion.
| | The bad news I have heard is that the heavier/bulkier the mobile, the
| | more powerful its reception.
| |
| | Regards,
| | Amer
|
| most nokia with external "protruding" antenna, not internal ant. works
very
| well. 9210 has exceptionally good reception with ant. up, in urban areas
| theres no need to extend the 9210s ant.
|
| 5110 for cheep cheep good reception. That stub works wonders, better than
| 5210 (internal ant) reception.
|
|

PS> If ur in an urban town area, any phone will work well, just that the
countryside needs stubby ant. phones...hehe