Cellphones Really Are Not As Good As They Were 10 Years Ago At Making Calls (telegraph.co.uk)

whoever57 writes: If you ever thought that your cellphone does not make calls as well as the cellphone you had 10 years ago, you may be right. The UK's Ofcom (roughly equivalent to the FCC) tested cellphones and found that many needed a much higher signal than the standards recommend in order to send and receive data. This applied to 2G, 3G and 4G connections. Confirmation bias has me nodding along; Google Fi has been dropping a huge percentage of my calls lately, and I've been unfairly reminiscing about the good old days with a heavy Nokia 5100 series phone.

Comments

Antennas

[Hardhead_7]

It's not really a mystery. Phones used to have external antennas, and now they're not only internal but the phones themselves have mostly metal cases (because it feels so much more "premium") with a tiny plastic window for the antenna because that metal blocks the radio waves. This is textbook "form over function" design.

Re:Antennas

[oh_my_080980980]

RTFA: "top-of-the-range smartphone is not as good for basic communications as the mobile you used a decade ago.

...a handset costing a fraction of the price typically provides better signal performance for voice calls and texts. "

So your comparison is wrong. It's about basic functionality that the newer phones perform poorly. Read the article sometime.

Re: Antennas

[tysonedwards]

That is not what the tests were referring to in the article... Devices need a significantly higher signal to maintain a connection than the standards recommend, and some reference platforms for chipsets are closer in line with the standards, but themselves are *a little* high, others *a little* low. As such, OEMs are taking what is essentially a known good chipset, coupling it with an antenna design that is more insulated or otherwise inferior for some reason, at which point creating a less capable communications product - for some reason.

With regards to devices like the 3 Google Fi phones dropping calls when they don't on other providers... Perhaps it's more a byproduct of the additional overhead of routing voice calls as data to account for the 2 cellular carriers or wifi hand-off that can take place, treating the call as VoIP between the handset and the server as compared to legacy deployments that did not have the added complexity or potential points of failure?

Re:Antennas

[nightfire-unique]

It's not really a mystery. Phones used to have external antennas, and now they're not only internal but the phones themselves have mostly metal cases (because it feels so much more "premium") with a tiny plastic window for the antenna because that metal blocks the radio waves. This is textbook "form over function" design.

I'm with you against the whole form-over-function bullshit that's swept the mobile device world in the last 10 years, but I wouldn't necessarily call out internal antennas as the problem.

For one, frequencies are higher permitting smaller antennas. Voice channels are digital, and compressed, meaning lower data rates. And, quite frankly, if you can support data at megabit levels (which you can even at like -100dBm), you can support 44khz/16bit voice, let alone the unbelievable low bandwidth codecs we use.

I think it has more to do with the simple fact that people don't use voice as often, and manufacturers are putting their development effort elsewhere. This leads to problems like incorrect microphone placement, non-functioning noise cancellation, radio firmware bugs, poor process priority management, etc.

In the old days, I'd choose a phone based on how well it made calls. Now, it's literally the last thing I check, if I even check at all. Screen quality, data rates, processor performance, storage and RAM, internal sensor array and battery life are all far more important to me, and I suspect this is true for many, if not most. Even if it's not true, I think it's what manufacturer market research suggests, and so we are where we are.

Re:Antennas

[Solandri]

Since most of the replies to you so far are smarmy, I'll try to answer your question.

An antenna is not just a piece of metal. It's a resonance chamber. When you were a kid, you probably sloshed water back and forth in the bathtub. If you did it at the right frequency, the waves would get bigger and bigger, and eventually slosh over the sides getting your mom and dad all wet.

That's exactly what an antenna does. The EM waves passing through the antenna sloshes electrons back and forth. If it's just the right frequency (called a resonance frequency), the sloshing gets bigger and bigger, creating a stronger signal for the electronics in the phone to pick up. Other frequencies don't create as big a sloshing (or any sloshing), so the amplifies amplifies signals close to the resonance frequency relative to other frequencies. The effect is very pronounced if designed correctly, and allows you to easily pull out exactly the signal you want from a sea of EM noise. What determines the resonance frequency? The size of the bathtub, or the length of the antenna.

You can't use a metal case as an antenna because it's too broad. The resonance frequency along a diagonal would be different than along the edge, and your "antenna" wouldn't tune out a lot of the other frequencies you consider to be noise. You can get around this by using just the edge of the case (Apple tried this). But then anything conductive which touches the antenna (like your hand) can alter its resonance frequency, causing it to not work anymore as an antenna.

So the best antenna design is still a metal wire of just the right length so its resonance frequency matches your cell phone carrier's frequency, mounted internally so as to isolate it from contact with other conductive items. Wrapping that wire inside a metal body creates a Faraday cage which blocks out EM signals, making reception (and transmission) worse. That's what's been so frustrating about all these bloggers and reviewers who failed high school physics who think metal makes a phone "premium". No it doesn't, it makes it a Faraday cage which is pretty much an anti-radio, the worst possible thing you could do to a phone. Save the metal cases for jewelry boxes. Plastic or carbon fiber is the best material for a phone (or radio) case.

Re:This just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Antenna's serve a purpose"

So do apostrophes. That wasn't one of them, though.

Re:Penetration is my problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Penetration is my problem

So are you saying you need a longer antenna?

Unpair phones from services.. seriously

[brxndxn]

The only way I know of to keep a competitive environment where cellular carriers cannot fuck with user experiences and device makers get a fair shake is to prevent cellular services companies from providing the phones. It's anecdotal (because I don't know of any app that will allow me to prove this), but I am certain TMobile drops data connections of my phone detects wifi signals nearby - even if Wifi is off. It basically forces me to use a wifi signal even though I'm perfectly happy using the cellular data signal that I pay for. It happens in good coverage areas. If devices were decoupled from cellular service providers, the device makers would have much more incentive to show the user that the device is not causing the issue. And, the services would have much more incentive to show which devices play well with their networks. Since cell phone services control the device, they can install the worlds worst battery-hogging software that just annoys the user - and prevent the user from removing it.
So, to sum it up:
- cellular service companies are evil, make too much money, and don't spend enough money upgrading their networks
- cellular device companies need to grow a backbone and prevent cellular services from screwing up the user experience
- cellular service companies should not be able to control every aspect of the cellular device
- cellular services AT&T and Verizon are especially evil

Re:answer: old phone with new battery.

[Lumpy]

No it wont. most carriers are shutting down the 2G and earlier phone compatibility. by next summer it will not be useable in any way.

Re:Penetration is my problem...

[avandesande]

You are just holding it wrong!